Subscribe to the blog

Your email:

Fish with the Best

Wild Animal Fights

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Siberian Tiger vs Grizzly Bear

  
  
  

Siberian Tiger                   vs                     Grizzly Bear

 tiger vs bearBear vs Tigeru

Sorry for the long delay in posts...

This is by far the most requested fight in WAFC history and features arguably the two most lethal big predators on the planet.

The Siberian Tiger is the largest Big Cat on Earth, growing up to 11 ft long and up to 850 lbs. It preys on huge animals such as deer, boar, and Elk. Siberian Tigers have even been known to prey on Brown bear species in Asia. Although this cat is big it still has incredible quickness. It's preferred method of killing is, like most big cats, a bite to the throat of its victim. 

The Grizzly Bear has incredible strength, as mentioned in previous fights on WAFC. It also has a size advantage,growing up to and beyond 1000lbs. The largest Grizzlies can stand up to 8 ft tall. 

Its tough for me to choose a victor here out of two of my favorite predators. I think the fight would go pretty quick once the two beasts got into it.

The tiger would most likely be first to act trying to pounce at the Bear's throat. The Bear could counter with a downward swat, as it is known to do, that could crush the cat's skull. 

However I think more often than not the Tiger would win this fight. With its size and speed, the momentum of a dash and pounce would be enough to knock the bear backwards before a blow to the neck kills it.

TIGER WINS!

 

Comments

This fight sometimes happens in Siberia where both the Siberian tiger and the brown bear live. Tigers have been know to attack and kill female and young brown bears. However, the tigers have learned to avoid the boars. A male grizzly could easily overpower the biggest tiger. The American grizzly is simply a sub-species of brown bear.
Posted @ Friday, November 06, 2009 2:44 AM by Toby Ross
Seeing the bear is a grizzly and not a Russian bear I'd give the upper hand to the tiger but if it was a Russian bear the tiger would be the usual loser.
Posted @ Sunday, November 08, 2009 4:29 PM by Zeroman
you may of seen my post on cougar vs black bear i work with big cats espechaly cougars. but iv worked with tigers as well as all the other cats and tigers are verry deadly but the grizzly strenghth gives it the atvantig. a lion truely has a better chance killing a grizzly then a tiger. a tiger can kill one iff the sneek up behind and jump on there back but iff the bear knows hes there the tiger has his hands full cuz bears are also exstremly fast. tiger vs grizzly grizzly wins 60 out of 100 times. i ones did witness a fight when i had to remove a siberian tiger from a small town. he was geting to close. i was waching a grizzly feeding and the tiger jumped on his back and killed it instantly.
Posted @ Monday, November 09, 2009 5:07 PM by brady brooks
Brady, 
 
 
 
How can you say the Lion would have the better chance than the Tiger of killing the Grizzly? First, Tiger's kill Russian Browns by stealth. Second, are we including Male Kodiaks, Coastal Alaskan Brown/Grizzlies that weigh between 700-1400 Lbs. or just inland Grizzlies? 
 
 
 
I'll go with the Big Bears! 
 
 
 
Big Male Bears 70 
 
 
 
Big Male Tigers 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Big Male Bears 90 
 
 
 
Big Male Lions 10 
 
 
 
We have been arguing this issue on the Lion Black Bear site! 
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, November 09, 2009 9:35 PM by Ted
dont underestamate the lion yes the tiger kills brown bears with stelth but the lion will cercal the bear just like it dose to every other invading preditor and when i was working with some guys who were on a lion show on anilmale planet they had proved that in a fight between a lion and a grizzly the lion would win 70 out of 100 times. the tiger also has a hard time killing a male lion cuz a male lion only knows how to fight cuz they grow up fighting all there life to get ready to fight for a pride and tiger cant get a hold of there neck esaly cuz of there long mane. u can belive what u want but ill stick with what iv lerned working with big cats
Posted @ Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:20 PM by brady brooks
well i think this fight is 50 50 iff the tiger gets the jump he wins iff the bear gets the jump or the fight is in close corders the bear wins but all the bear has to do is bring his middy arme down on the tigers back and its over but the tigers to slipry so i think this fight can go ether way there both devastating animals
Posted @ Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:35 PM by socom
the bear would win due to size strength and because it's skull is thicker. any blow the tiger receives to its head could be fatal. on another note they used to have real animal fights in the early 1900's and the bear was banned due to the fact it kept winning.
Posted @ Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:02 AM by
lion vs grizzly - 20/100 for the lion, the biggest predators lions are use to fighting are hyenas aside from other lions. 
 
tiger vs grizzly - 50/50 for head on matches. Black/sloth bear are bigger than hyenas and some black bears can even reach the size of afriacn lions (though rare) and the tiger still wins. 
 
tiger vs russian bear - 30/100 for the tiger on head on matches. 
 
lion vs russian bear - 9/100 for the lion.
Posted @ Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:06 PM by TLK
the exspersts at animal face-off belive that the lion would beat the tiger tiger would loss to the grizzly and lion would beat the grizzly
Posted @ Friday, November 20, 2009 5:52 AM by Socom
the polar bear or all bears would beat a tiger.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:01 AM by Polar bear
All bears is wrong for in India tigers prey on adult sloth bears and black bears as well as they eat Russian bears in Siberia, so what do you mean by all bears? 
 
Of course a Polar bear or a larger species of brown bear thats larger than the grizzle can kill any big cat but thats not all bears.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:51 PM by TLK
alright look, the animal face off was not between a lion and an indian tiger, it was some other tiger, an indian tiger would certainly beat any lion. and some bears would lose to a tiger or lion. but a grizzly kodiak or polar bear would easily dominate any of these big cats
Posted @ Sunday, November 29, 2009 11:43 AM by whatever
I am an African and favors the lion but the fact about lions is that, the lion is skill limited on fighting other animals. The lion is too agressive and shows off its power and does not have fighting strategy instead it has got killing strategy mainly in South and North Africa Eastern and Western Parts would be a problem for a lion where you would find Tigers 
 
 
 
I saw a video whereby the joker mistakenly open the cage and the tiger got passed him and went straight for the male lion 
 
 
 
They fought for almost 20minutes and the tiger was skillfull rolling down all sides and the lion could only be agrasive but was not skillful like the tiger 
 
 
 
At the end the tiger could not jump on top of the tiger nor the lion could get a nice grip off the tiger but the lion was killed after it was tired and the tiger won the fight easy because of its tactics and strategy 
 
 
 
On the other hand people underestimate the power and the skill of the lioness, lioness are prey killers in the family whereby lions joins after the kill has neen made 
 
 
 
Again i watched a video between the lioness and the male tiger the two could not finish the fight but the lioness had opportunities to kill the male tiger but ended up avoiding each other simply because the lioness applied the skills and avoided being beaten on vulnerable areas 
 
 
 
Regards,
Posted @ Monday, November 30, 2009 2:57 AM by Thabiso
My friend there are records of tigress beating male lions as well. yeah and I know people truely overate male lions when it is the lioness that really deserves the praises but I think mostly its because she is maneless. 
 
 
 
And for all those people who believe animal face off I think than you need to get your own information on each animal before you agree with animal face off because unless that grizzly bear was young, or ill or not very healthy there is no way a male lion can be the usual victor.
Posted @ Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:23 PM by TLK
From my experience, it's like this. 
 
 
 
Siberian Tiger vs lion: 10/10 - for the tiger. 
 
 
 
Bengal Tiger vs lion: 8/10 - tiger. 
 
 
 
Average sized Grizzly bear vs Average sized Polar bear: 5/10 - the grizzly. 
 
 
 
Exceptionally large grizzly (kodiak bear) vs large polar bear: 9/10 - for the grizzly 
 
 
 
Lion vs average grizzly/polar bear: 9/10- for the grizzly/polar bear. 
 
 
 
Average size grizzly/polar bear vs Bengal tiger: 7/10-for the bear 
 
 
 
Average size grizzly/polar bear vs Siberian Tiger: 5/10 for the bear
Posted @ Monday, December 07, 2009 12:28 PM by dannyp206
dannyp206 
 
 
 
You seem to to think that lions and bears are push over and will just sit still and be killed. I do agree that lion vs tiger the tiger would be the usual victor but lions are no easy cat to kill the tiger would sustain some good amount of injuries before it can kill the lion the fight would be more like 5/10-7/10 for the tiger when faced against a lion. 
 
 
 
A siberian tiger would not fair very well at an average sized polar bear we are talking about 660 kg of bear vs 221 kg of cat on head on matches the tiger stands very little chances. If anything it should be Average Kodiak/polar bear vs big cats 9/10 for the bears.
Posted @ Monday, December 07, 2009 4:06 PM by TKL
I believe that even the biggest Siberian tiger would stand very little chance against a boar grizzly and no chance at all against a Kodiak or a polar bear. This does not mean that a tiger is a pushover. The big cats are still the better hunters.
Posted @ Monday, December 07, 2009 5:07 PM by Toby Ross
There is no way a tiger of any kind could beat, lame or kill a Kodiak Brown Bear.It would just piss off the bear and then it would lunch
Posted @ Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:42 PM by Go Blue
the thread creator is obviously biased towards tigers, according to him, a tiger wins against a brown bear, whilst a lion loses to an AMERICAN BLACK BEAR.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 5:51 AM by Gianmario
In Siberia, Tigers sometimes kill a female brown bear, but never a boar. Brown bears are too powerful for any big cat. As for lion vs American black bear, it could go either way. I think you are right, Gianmario.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 6:12 AM by Toby Ross
tigers are more agressive than the lion .a tiger would win the fight because of his strongth and he would win the fight against the bear because of the speed
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:04 AM by
Toby Ross 
 
Tigers have killed male brown bears before in Siberia 
 
Nat.Geo. did a documentary once about two large male brown bear found died which might have been killed by the same siberian tiger on separate incidences but for all we know the bears might have been ambused or were hibernating but yes females and cubs are usually taken especially the cubs. 
 
 
 
The lion vs bear would be around 5/10-7/10 for the lion, we need to look at the fact that lions don't really fight big preditors like tigers do, tigers have to live with black,sloth and brown bears but lions only have hyena to handle which usually will run away at first sight of a male lion. The lion would be the usual winner but it will have injuries. 
 
 
 
But I do agree, the guy here is biased in his claims for he is also wrong about the size of the animals if anything he might have inflated the tiger to make it be that big for most male tigers don't pass the 600 pound mark.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:16 AM by TLK
Ok, these are all interesting posts and I must say informational.I think the advantage would have to go to the home team. By that I mean If the confrontation was in Siberia the tiger would probably win. If the confrontion was on the Copper River in Alaska the Grizzly would win.Now take both animals and put them in Grudge match some where in East St.Louis...Id say its a draw.I think we need to do this! What do you say? Lets settle this once and for all
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:47 PM by Go Blue
Siberian tigers do confront brown bears in Siberia. The big male bear always wins. Only an occasional female bear is sometimes killed by a tiger. And this is rare. A lion or a tiger is no match for a brown bear.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:13 PM by Toby Ross
well from my reserch and waching what all u guys say some one must be rong becuz both sides seme to prove there animal is the winer. iff we put the animals in a cage the bear would win every time cuz theres no were for the tiger to move. in the wiled witch is what were talking about here tigers use there asansin like skills. this cat gets on the bears back i give it to the tiger. the tiger would probly perform a hit and run face to face with a bear i could go ether way. now for the lions. male lions are said to be the most agreesive cat and have the most stamina. lions are nown to cercal pray or ennamys that are biger then them. waiting for an opertunity. just like in the black bear vs lion video the lion emeditly starts cercaling the bear. but i haf to give it to the bear in grizzly vs lion just becuz the lion has no really teknek like the tiger. tiger asasanat lions go head to head.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:57 PM by socom
The proof is in the pudding! Watch your nature programs. Brown bears do live in Siberia. These fights do happen. Therefore it is a well known documented fact that male brown bears kill tigers. Not often. Only when a tiger is desperate enough to attack a large bear.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:16 PM by Toby Ross
There are alot of studies where tigers and bears conflict usually it's the bear trying to steal from a tiger or the bear is defending itself. 
 
There are documents that claim that male siberian tigers will go after sows while male brown bears will go after tigress. 
 
 
 
The fact is tigers will put up a much better fight when fighting a Grizzly because Grizzly bears are smaller than Siberian brown bears but even so the bear will still take the fight 
 
Siberian Male tiger vs Male Grizzle-6/10 for the bear 
 
Siberian Male tiger vs Male Russian brown-8/10 for the bear  
 
Siberian tiger vs Male Kodiak bear 9/10 for the bear same can be said in a polar bear fight. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 6:56 PM by TLK
i was just watching a program on animal planet that was about the animals of the far est of russia and ever study they did proves the siberian tigers kill and pray on adalt male brown bears by jumping on there backs
Posted @ Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:35 AM by Socom
Only a very hungry desperate tiger will attack a brown bear. And then, only a young immature bear or a smaller female. More often, it is the bear who comes in to take a kill away from a the tiger. The tiger can defend it's meal from a young bear or a female. But a fully grown boar can take the food away from the tiger.
Posted @ Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:52 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross you keep denying that a tiger can kill a full grown male brown bear and there are evidence that prove male tigers have killed adult male brown bears before no one is saying that the tiger wins most of the time but there is no way a full grown male brown bear can beat a tiger all the time 
 
TLK ia right i have seen that show on Nat Geo where 2 large male brown bear were found died and they said a tiger killed them and may i remind you they said large male brown bear not a young male and not a female bear but a large male brown bear.
Posted @ Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:57 PM by chr1$T
The body of an Orca was once found with shark bites taken from it. That does not prove that the sharks killed the Orca.  
 
The tiger was found with the dead body of a brown bear. Proves nothing.
Posted @ Saturday, December 12, 2009 3:04 PM by Toby Ross
wrong again beside the fact that the bear was covered in marks created by the tiger evidence in the snow showed signs of a struggle and the blood was only a couple days old even the locals said it was a tiger who did it.
Posted @ Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:18 PM by chr!$T
I have also seen documentaries of Bigfoot, the Abominable snowman, and the Lock Ness Monster. Never-the-less, brown bears and polar bears are the earth's top land predators.
Posted @ Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:28 PM by Toby Ross
I agree with you about your last statement like i said no one is saying the tiger wins most of the time but the bear does not win all the time 
 
think about it Nat Geo as all that tech there is no way that they will just asume the tiger killed the bear because they found its body and a tiger near by, they use the same equipment used to find criminals when they did their investigation , they could even tell you the time the bear and the tiger met and if the bear died exactly after his fight or a couple hours later but like you said bears are indeed the ultimate predator 
 
 
 
and where you said the male bear will always steal a kill from the tiger errors are in that for i've seen a female puma stand up to a big male grizzly for her kill and the bear backed down even though he had more that enough power to knock the puma silly so the i will say the bear doesn't always get what it wants from a tiger.
Posted @ Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:02 PM by chr1$T
Alright. Kung Fu, the first matial arts began when a Shoulin monk witnissed a stork defending her nest from a tiger.  
 
It is theoretically possible for a tiger to kill a grizzy. The tiger could have attacked a sleeping bear. The bear may have been sick or injured already. The bear might have been a very old bear or crippled from an old injury.  
 
In Old California, when owned by Spain, they used to have animal fights regularly in an arena. They kept records of these events. They had an American grizzly which took on and defeated all rivals. This included both lions and tigers. Of course, who is to say just how healthy any particular animal was before each fight began?
Posted @ Sunday, December 13, 2009 3:47 AM by Toby Ross
toby 
 
 
 
were talking about the wild her not som close rang fighting cage of corse the bear would win but in the wild the tiger is the assan. there was a programe about the animals of the far est of russia. the russion brown bear a tipe of deer, wolfs, a tipe of brown bear, then it said but the king of them all the siberian tiger known to stalk and kill large male brown bears as a natuarl food source. tiger sneeks up behind jumps on there back and the bears done. a tiger can take enney bear iff they jump on there backs. but head to head the bear wins
Posted @ Monday, December 14, 2009 6:16 PM by socom
This site is about a fight. Not some "one in a million happening" where a tiger jumps on the back of an old sickly bear and then by sheer luck manages to stay alive. This is about a face-to-face fight between a Siberian tiger and a grizzly bear.
Posted @ Monday, December 14, 2009 6:40 PM by Toby Ross
I would like to see a Siberian Tiger take on my Mother in Law. Now that would be a good cat fight!
Posted @ Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:32 AM by Go Blue
yes toby ross its theorectically possible for a tiger to kill a bear but that theory has been proven just like the blach hole theory no one knew it existed after all it was just a theory but now they have proof it does exist just like they have proof that in conforntations between brown bears and tigers the bear does not win all the time regardless of health,gender,size and i guess what the induvidual animal is like 
 
 
 
for intanse the crane that was defending her nest from a tiger, you and i both know that any tiger can kill any crane that is on the ground in a flash but it didn't likewise any large male grizzly can kill any female puma/any big cat if it wanted to but it didn't it retreated it just turned its back to the puma and left. 
 
 
 
and also there have been records of large male siberian tigers found dead and it was said that they were killed by russain bears but like you said no one knows if these tigers were healthy or not it also could have been sick or injured bears are also hunters too maybe the tiger was ambused but who knows.
Posted @ Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:30 PM by chr1$T
According to Wikipedia... 
 
Large adult brown bears seem to be immune to tiger attacks during the Summer months, but are sometimes killed in their dens during the Winter. Tigers are killed by brown bears when the bear is attacked or when the bear is defending his kill.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:34 AM by Toby Ross
<<Large adult brown bears seem to be immune to tiger attacks during the Summer months, but are sometimes killed in their dens during the Winter. Tigers are killed by brown bears when the bear is attacked or when the bear is defending his kill.>>  
 
 
 
 
 
well i went to wikipedia and read the siberian tiger article and it said this; 
 
 
 
'Grown brown bears are usually immune from tiger attacks.' 
 
 
 
 
 
note the sentence said 'usually' meaning most of the time and not all the time. you can visit it now if you want. 
 
 
 
 
 
wikipedia also states that young tigers are killed by brown bears ,once again note the sentence 'young tigers' 
 
 
 
if you read the Interspecific Predatory Relationships in the tiger article it even says that tigers do kill adult brown bear on occasions. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:48 AM by ch1$T
http://www.amur-leopard.org/index.php?id=342 
 
check this out every knows that a mother bear is the worst land carnivorous animal to mess with but yet tigers can drive them off from their cubs  
 
mother bears have been known to fight to the death for their cubs but tigers can drive them away.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:56 AM by ch1$T
Yes, on rare occasions, a tiger will kill a full grown female brown bear. Adult male brown bears are known to kill young adult tigers who are in their prime. No tiger can kill a full grown brown bear who is awake, alert, and healthy.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:37 PM by Toby Ross
and yet there are records of tigers killing large healthy adult brown male bears that are awake 
 
once a tiger was seen fighting a bear both animals were said to be in their prime and the bear retreated into a near by tree the tiger did not follow the bear up the tree but went into the bushes instead after some intense hours the bear finally decided to leave the tree for the wind was not blowing in his favour the wind was blowing his scent towards the tiger and not the other way around and was ambused and kill by the same tiger 
 
 
 
the bear was a collared healthy male the tiger was unknown to the locals maybe the tiger was a new male looking for a territory the status of the tiger was also unknown, 
 
 
 
there are even records of hunters tracking tigers and have wittness fights between tigers and bears and the bear fleeing from the tiger instead of facing it  
 
one hunter even claimed the bear hesitating to fight the tiger but the tiger came at it anyway  
 
 
 
and i think you are getting the young tiger sentence wrong for adult sloth bears can drive off young tigers from their kill but adult tigers eat adult sloth bears so it is not a young adult but a young and inexperienced tigers the bears usually kill i thimk you need to read it again.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:54 PM by chr1$T
Adult brown bears do not climb trees to escape danger. The only danger being human hunters. However, juvenile brown bears climb trees when frightened. Therefore, the tiger was after bear cubs, not an adult male brown bear. Another reason this fabricated story doesn't make sense is the fact that a tiger can jump very high. One would have to climb very high very fast to escape a tiger.  
 
There is no animal in the forest that a brown bear would flee, unless it is a bigger bear.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:10 PM by Toby Ross
lol you are such a denial 
 
http://www.loukashkin.org/Tigers/index.htm 
 
 
 
in this record the bear was headed for the tree but the tiger got to it before it could climb and the bear manage to free itself from the tiger's grip and ran away and like i said it was from a hunter 
 
 
 
so i guess bears also run from tigers too and not just a bigger bear 
 
and the bear was head for a tree indicating it wanted to climb it. 
 
 
 
if i remember where the site was of the collared bear climbing the tree i would post for i do not need to make up a story that can be found on the internet.lol 
 
 
 
in india bears and leopards escape tiger by climbing up trees 
 
 
 
if you have seen Tiger spy in the jungle you would have seen the tigress chasing a leopard and the leopard climbs in the tree the tigress tries to climb the tree but gives up and tigess wasn't even half way up the tree. 
 
 
 
black,sloth and brown bears have been docomented to hide in trees from tigers the tiger could have jumped but how far up would you think it would reach with just one leap? so a tiger does not always climb a tree to get to its prey. 
 
 
 
you don't have to beleive if you don't want man but there is proof and if i can find that record i'll post it in a heart beat 
 
and if you check the amur leopard site i posted before where actual scientist have been you would see it saying that tigers do hunt grown brown bears. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:47 PM by chr1$T
http://www.geocities.com/lion_versus_tiger/further_info/news_article_1899.htm 
 
records of lions killing brown bears
Posted @ Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:35 PM by chr1$T
i made a mistake and posted the wrong record here is the real thing 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/40/master/1/ 
 
 
 
what i have also learned is that siberian tigers are infact poor climers when compared to leopards and even bears 
 
there are many people in the US that are attacked by brown bears and they say that when they try to climb up trees the bear just bolt up the trees after them so bears are prety good climbers you know.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:02 PM by chr1$T
Stories. Chr1$t is reading stories. I went to a circuis show once to see Gargantua "the killer gorilla". They told outlandish stories about their monster. As a kid, I believed them. I also remember watching stories on film about gorillas invading native villages to steal women.  
 
One site that you sent me to were stories told from circuis people to advertise their "great lion". Another site were simply tiger stories. You should read some the the tales told by "big game hunters" of the 1800s and early 1900s! Outlandish! 
 
Do you really believe that a thousand pound bear is going to run from a 600 pound tiger?
Posted @ Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:02 AM by Toby Ross
I just finished a great deal of research. NOW, I must admit that YES, Siberian tigers, being the awesome predators that they are, do in fact ( when other meat is scarce ) hunt and kill brown bears. This is told in Wikipedia under Siberian tigers. They kill by "hide and ambush" strategy.  
 
So, from a sneaky ambush, a tiger can kill a brown bear. But, like all natural hunters ( and unlike humans ) the tiger will not purposely choose the biggest bear. But, I will admit, that no bear is safe in tiger country.  
 
The artical also says that many brown bears benefit from the tigers. These are bears that have learned to follow the tiger and take his dinner. The tiger is a more skillful hunter. The bear is simply bigger and stronger.  
 
In a face-to-face fight, my money is still on the grizzly. But, I think that tigers are awesome predators.  
 
I also learned that there are 2 kinds of brown bears in Siberia. One is the "black grizzly" which is more closely related to the American grizzly. The other is a huge relative of our Kodiak bear.  
 
Tigers are awesome! I say that the tiger is the top predator where ever he lives. The brown bear is "king of the hill". More like some views of T-rex. He does more bullying and taking food than actual hunting.  
 
But, in a face-off, the bear still wins.
Posted @ Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:42 AM by Tobt Ross
Siberian tiger. 500-700 pounds. 
 
Brown bear. 800-1500 pounds. 
 
Size and strength are on the bear. 
 
Stamina is on the bear. 
 
Speed... tiger ( maybe ).
Posted @ Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:08 PM by Toby Ross
lol 
 
 
 
you seem to think that i said the tiger would be the winner no toby ross i actually agree with you any large species of bear will destroy any member of the cat family but even so the bear will not win all the time and likewise tigers are also not safe in bear country either. 
 
 
 
no one said a bear cannot steal from a tiger, where are you getting this stuff from? if you check Wikipedia it says a tiger will “SOMETIMES” defend its kill like I said before a bear does not always gets what it wants from a tiger but there are also smaller animals the bear can steal from and bears are omnivores so they don’t need to eat meat all the time  
 
 
 
for the bear fleeing from the tiger to save its life yeah I do believe it can happen for a male grizzly bear backing down from a female puma as happened before and pumas are way smaller than tigers, once again Wikipedia also states that brown bears have been known to change there paths when they come across tiger tracks while others will sometimes follow the tiger's tracks without fear. 
 
 
 
but like I said if you don’t want to believe you don’t have to no one is forcing you to but records are there.  
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:22 PM by chr1$T
We are getting way off track here. This is not about sneak attacks and who can steal whose dinner. This is animal face-off. Two wild animals standing face-to-face, then go at it!  
 
A 600 hundred pound tiger is facing a 1200 pound brown bear. The bear is standing 8 feet tall. The tiger springs toward his death. The bear ( a full grown male ) wins every time.
Posted @ Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:45 PM by Toby Ross
WOW! I just watched that video that you have been talking about. Siberian tiger vs brown bear. Total buffalo chips! This is a video put together by someone who simply likes tigers.  
 
It talks about a 900 pound tiger. It claims that tigers sprint 50 mph through the forest. Buffalo chips!  
 
 
 
You see a grizzly climbing a tree. If you look closely, it is a juvenile bear. Then you see a tiger walking through the forest. You do not see both animals in one shot. Yet they are claiming that the bear is fleeing the tiger. This video claims that brown bears are simply a common food source for tigers. Nonsense!  
 
I will grant you that on rare occasions, when a tiger is desperate for food, he might attack an adult male brown bear. This is a savage ambush, which tigers are probably the worlds best at.  
 
I believe that the tiger is the apex predator is his home range. This is because the grizzly is more of an oppertunist than a predator. The brown bear eats vegetation, fish, rodents, and carrion more often than he hunts and kills.  
 
But, in a face-off, the grizzly is the undisputable champion.
Posted @ Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:10 AM by Toby Ross
I like tigers better, but sorry; Grizzly wins. They are too tough to be taken down by a tiger head to head.  
 
Even after confrontation, I would bet a tiger flees after a couple failed attempts at downing his opponent. Thats how most predators are. They cant waste energy with a prey that cannot be taken down easily. This is why many tend to hunt in packs. 
 
I was surprised to see 70% are in favor of the tiger winning.
Posted @ Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:20 PM by adam
Most of the experts on allexperts agree that the outcome of this fight is 6/10 in favour of the Grizzly.
Posted @ Tuesday, December 22, 2009 8:57 PM by TLK
thats right TLK i even posted some links 
 
 
 
 
 
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
you seem to do a lot of reading but little understanding  
 
 
 
first off 
 
 
 
i did not tell you to watch anything so i have no idea of what you are talking about if anything i think you should re-read my comments 
 
 
 
one of your respond was that a bear will not run from anything but a bigger bear and that my comment was made up so i gave you a link of a hunter's record of a tiger trying to kill a bear and the bear gets away and runs off 
 
 
 
i did not mention anything about a video nor did i even post a link to a video so i'm still wandering where you got that from  
 
 
 
links: 
 
 
 
 
 
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/Tiger-vs-Grizzly-Bear-2.htm 
 
 
 
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/Grizzly-Vs-Tiger-other.htm 
 
 
 
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/2009/4/easter-special.htm 
 
 
 
 
 
thats only a few of them you can visit the site if you want and ask your own questions. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:23 PM by chr!$T
I will simplify it for you. 
 
In a face-off, a grizzy will kill a Siberian tiger every time.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 23, 2009 6:22 AM by Toby Ross
LOL like i said man you don't have to believe if you don't want to but even experts disagree with you 
 
 
 
what you say is just a mere opinion but experts have been in the field and not on their computers reading wikipedia lol you can even check out the lion vs black bear blog where a discussion between six person who really know thier stuff and do not rely on wikipedialol agree the out for lion vs brow bear is 8/10 for the bear LOL 
 
 
 
im out
Posted @ Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:49 AM by chr!$T
In an ambush attack, a tiger might kill a grizzly. Also, because any injury can be long-lasting for any wild animal, a grizzly might flee rather than participate in an unneccassary fight. Never-the-less, that is NOT what this site is about. 
 
In a face-off ( do you chr!$t understand face-off )... In a face-off, the grizzly would defeat the tiger every time.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 23, 2009 12:40 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
allexperts is also talking about a face to face combat 
 
 
 
do you think it is fair for the bear if the experts make the tiger ambush the bear? 
 
 
 
no fight can be a 10/10 because anything can happen experts say on a headon combat the fight would be 6/10 for the bear you need to understand that.
Posted @ Thursday, December 24, 2009 7:46 PM by chr!$T
I think you guys are going about this all wrong. 
 
 
 
A grizzly bear as never seen a tiger before but the tiger can easily mistake the grizzly for a smaller Siberian brown bear. 
 
 
 
Siberian brown bears are far more aggressive than any grizzly because they have to watch their backs form tigers. 
 
 
 
A grizzly bear does not have much competition in its domain only every now and then does a brave puma stand up to it.  
 
 
 
But a tiger is much bigger and stronger than a puma and is very confident in taking down pretty much anything the cat as speed on its side not to mention it taken on brown bears before. 
 
 
 
The grizzly as strength and size as its facter but it as never seen a tiger before and even so its used to things fleeing from it so is the tiger. 
 
 
 
In a caged match I have to say I agree with chr1$T 6/10 for the bear. 
 
 
 
Experts have stated that about 80% of a grizzly bear charges are buffs the tiger might have seen through some of them and even use it as an opportunity.
Posted @ Thursday, December 24, 2009 8:00 PM by Zeroman
I like the way you analyzed that Zeroman. 
 
6/10 is also my best bet. 
 
 
 
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
I think what you are saying is really just your oppinion because you have changed your mind several times before and I get the feeling you don't know much on this topic. 
 
 
 
But like wise no matter what the animals a fight can never be 10/10. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, December 24, 2009 8:07 PM by TLK
Siberian brown bears have been known to kill Siberian tigers, (the largest of the wild big cats of the modern day) 60-70% of the time. 
 
Same can be said for grizzly vs siberian tigers on headon confrontations.
Posted @ Thursday, December 24, 2009 9:00 PM by Ace
I made a mistake what I meant was no matter the circumstances and not animals.
Posted @ Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:53 PM by TLK
I change my mind only when I have been proven wrong. But, in a face to face encounter, the grizzly will defeat the tiger every time.  
 
It is like if you put Stone Cold Steve Austen in the ring against Don Knotts, Stone Cold will win every time. *Same thing.
Posted @ Friday, December 25, 2009 1:14 PM by Toby Ross
IF you put George Foreman in the ring against Danny Deveto, George is going to win every time, just like the grizzly win defeat the tiger every time.
Posted @ Friday, December 25, 2009 1:16 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
go and ask an expert 
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs grizzly bear 
 
 
 
6/10 for the bear. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Friday, December 25, 2009 7:20 PM by chr!$T
I really don't undersatnd how you can put animals in the same category as humans 
 
 
 
when we face off it either for money or to prove someting about being a man 
 
 
 
when animal fight its a fight for survival 
 
 
 
6/10 for the bear  
 
like i said go and ask an expert becuse you know nothing of this topic.
Posted @ Friday, December 25, 2009 7:25 PM by chr!$T
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
i did some thinking and i dont know why but i get the feeling im talking to a 12 year old because you think that all fights will go the same way as if the all tigers attack the same way and all bears will respond in the same way. 
 
 
 
have you ever had more than one dog before becuase if you did you would see that they do not behave the same way in certain situations 
 
 
 
but heres a test 
 
 
 
out of 10 fights how much time do you think the bear would win if he was facing a king penguin? 
 
 
 
my answer is 9/10 for the bear 
 
 
 
if you answer the question i'll tell you the reason for my answer.  
 
Posted @ Friday, December 25, 2009 7:46 PM by chr!$T
OK. In a face-off between an adult male grizzly and an adult male tiger, the tiger could win if... 
 
the grizzly is very old and toothless. 
 
the grizzly has a bad heart. 
 
The grizzly was recently shot. 
 
the grizzly just ate 10 pounds of rat poison. 
 
But, if both animals are healthy, the grizzly will win every time.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:44 AM by Toby Ross
Oh, about the penguin. In the water, right?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:47 AM by Toby Ross
I know very well that Mother Natures animals are not like people. But, who is being childish here? 
 
Chr1$t...you cannot admit that a grizzly bear 1200 to 1500 pounds can defeat a tiger weighing from 500 to 650 pounds. Even if they both weighed the same, the grizzly would be much stronger.  
 
The point I was trying to make, and simplifying it for you, is that when one animal overpowers the other so much, there can only be one outcome.  
 
But, if you want to believe that the tiger can defeat a grizzly twice his size...
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:10 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
we are talking about face - face healthy animals ok 
 
 
 
Have you contacted an expert yet? 
 
 
 
grizzly vs. king penguin on land 
 
 
 
Will you stop inflating the bear's size? you keep giving the size of a kodiak to the grizzly when this is a fight between a grizzly and a tiger not a kodiak and a tiger. 
 
 
 
here educate yourself about the grizzly bears size they do not average well above 800 pounds. Bears have been reported to reach this size but its not their average. 
 
 
 
http://www.mountainnature.com/wildlife/Bears/BearID.htm 
 
 
 
http://www.edu.pe.ca/southernkings/grizzly.htm 
 
 
 
http://www.bearaware.bc.ca/bears/bears_content_grizzly3bb.html 
 
 
 
even wikipedia 
 
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Bear 
 
 
 
and here 
 
 
 
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/grizzly-bear.html 
 
 
 
http://www.greatbear.org/brownbear.htm 
 
 
 
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3872615 
 
 
 
where are you getting that size info from anyway? 
 
 
 
i'm trying to analyze your case 
 
so you think that when a 310 pound tigress or a 480 pound male tiger ambushes a 160-700 pounds brown bear as soon as the tiger is on the bears back the bear will just roll over and get killed it won't fight back far its life are you are saying that, that cannot happen, are you saying that a tiger who knows what a bear is will not try to maneuver its way around the grizzly so that in an head on confrontation the tiger can kill the bear ambush style? 
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 9:14 AM by chr!$T
you think size is the only factor here don't you  
 
 
 
we all know that elephants are the largest and the strongest land animal right  
 
 
 
we know that when we mention strength they are in a whole different category right 
 
 
 
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
have you seen Tiger Spy in the Jungle yet? where they talk of the ruling 250 kg male tiger named Charger, he got that name because he was not afraid to charge at elephants face to face even in the documentary he was charging at the two elephants that carried the camera.  
 
3,000–5,000 kg are the size range and only african elephants get to bigger sizes of all other land aniamls. 
 
Do you know what an indochinese tiger is ? they are only about a few pounds lighter than the average african male lion but in the past they were used in caged match to take on asian bull elephants; 
 
 
 
Of all the land carnivores, the tiger is the only species that has been known to charge and take down a full-grown male elephant, one-on-one. The killing of the elephant was called "Death by a Thousand Claws" by Colonel Kesri Singh. The killing for centuries in Asia, especially in Indochina, where elephants used to be utilized in military as weapons, minor ethnic tribes, who are specialized in capturing and training elephants, have the traditions of testing captured male elephants by pressing one against a tiger. If an elephant survives the fight, it is considered ideal for battles. “ 
 
 
 
Do you know that the asains used elephants as war tool back then right? 
 
 
 
You can call this a story too if you want and this one as wel’l though I gave the name of one of the guys 
 
 
 
“One British hunter reported a long fight between a tiger and elephant in which the tiger killed the elephant by 1,000 cuts. The British hunter and Dr. Frank Mendel of the university of buffalo confirm this. “ 
 
 
 
But the size and health of the elephant was not given so I don’t know where this stands. 
 
 
 
http://citynewslive.com/fullstory2k5-insight-news-status-29-newsID-6008.html 
 
 
 
this is a record between a tigress and an elephant where she was trying to protect her cubs 
 
 
 
all of these are head on fight between tiger and elephants and as you can see its not just a one time incident but you can call it a story if you want no one is stopping you from not believing 
 
 
 
and these are fight not animal preyed upon because the tiger did not eat them after wards  
 
 
 
and when you read please understand too 
 
size cannot be the only factor in a fight but how the animals react to each other when caged can be the determine factor 
 
Siberian tiger vs grizzly 6/10 for the bear 
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 9:16 AM by chr1$T
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
out of 10 fights how many times do you think a polar bear will kill a kodiak bear?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 9:45 AM by chr1$T
OK. We had been talking about brown bears in general. But, we will stick with American grizzly. 
 
Grizzly advantages include: 
 
Size ( 800 lbs vs 600 lbs ). 
 
Strength ( the grizzly is far stronger ). 
 
Stamina / endurance ( cats are short-winded ). 
 
intellegence ( bears are smarter than cats ). 
 
Speed ( probably equal ). 
 
NOW...what advantage does a tiger have? You say that the grizzly will win 6 out of 10 fights. Yet, the tiger has absolutely no advantage over the grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 9:45 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
lol you are reading but not getting the point 
 
 
 
now i'm convinced i'm talking to a child 
 
 
 
the tiger also has no advantage over elephants but you have records of lone tigers fighting elephants face to face and one on one and killing it. 
 
 
 
when you understand what you have read let me know :D 
 
 
 
Are you not contacting the expert because you are afaid of what they might say? 
 
 
 
you want me to answer your question but at the same time you have yet to answer any of mine. 
 
 
 
Siberian tiger vs grizzly 6/10 for the bear
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 11:10 AM by chr!$T
chr1$T  
 
I think all you are doing is wasting your time here with some kid 
 
 
 
He didn't even know the size range of the grizzly bear for crying out loud. 
 
You gave records but what as he given nothing but opinions. 
 
 
 
Trust me all you are doing is wasting your time Chr1$t.  
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 11:17 AM by Salva
I very well know the size range of an American grizzly. But, we had got to talking about brown bears in general. They are all just one species, with the American grizzly being a sub-species.  
 
Elephants????  
 
We are not talking about elephants here, boy. A grizzly will kill a tiger in a face-to-face fight 10 out of 10 times.  
 
And you are correct. The tiger has no advantage. So, how do you suppose he is going to win 6 out of 10 fights?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 12:19 PM by Toby Ross
According to Wikipedia, American grizzly ( male ) 500 - 1000 pounds. But, I'll settle for an 800 pound grizzly against even the biggest tiger ( smile ). 
 
Tell me Chr!$t, how many fights out of 10 would you suppose a hamster would win in a face-off against a wolverine? Here again, one animal seems to have all of the advantages.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 1:35 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
still have not answered any of my question and you look like you have not read my comments 
 
 
 
now go read again I even posted a link of a fight between a tigress and an elephant where the wounds the elephant get from the tigress caused its death and this was a face to face clash. 
 
 
 
 
 
once again go and re-read my post 
 
 
 
check wikipedia again 
 
 
 
 
 
Siberian tiger vs grizzly 6/10 for the bear 
 
 
 
i ask again have you contacted an expert yet? 
 
 
 
 
 
Salva i do agree with you but if he is not even reading my comments then he would never understand.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:05 PM by chr1$T
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
is anewering my questions so hard? 
 
 
 
and if you decide to re read my comments please understamd. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:07 PM by chr!$T
Toby Ross 
 
lol 
 
the size range for brown bears in general is 300 - 1700 pounds you had 1200-1500 pounds meaning you were talking about the kodiak bear and not talking about brown bears in general 
 
 
 
lol 
 
 
 
so i guess that makes you a lier or you really did not know the size range and is lying about that too huh? lol 
 
 
 
and i did not answer your question about advantages was stating a fact which you read and once again did not understand 
 
 
 
lol
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:19 PM by chr1$T
I know that tigers have been known to take down Asian elephants. I remember watching a film taken of one such encounter back in the 50's or early 60's.  
 
But, a grizzly is not a herbivore. He is a powerful carnivore. We are not talking about a tiger facing an 800 pound cow. This is an animal that has been known to break the neck of a bull bison will a single blow of a powerful arm.  
 
Your Bengal tiger killing an elephant carries no weight here. You have convinced me that Siberian tigers have been known to kill full grown brown bears either by ambush or while the bear is sleeping. But, I believe that this is very rare and even under these circumstances, the tiger is not always victorious. 
 
But, in a face-to-face encounter, what chance does the tiger have?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:23 PM by Toby Ross
You have been talking about brown bears! You have been saying that a Siberian tiger can take down a brown bear. Kodiaks and their Siberian relatives are from 1200 to 1500 pounds.  
 
But now...suddenly...it is all about the American grizzly. 
 
But, that is alright with me. A grizzly, 500 to 1000 pounds is still much more than a match for your tiger ( smile ).  
 
AND, the grizzly is simply a sub-species of brown bear ( in case this was previously unknown to you ).  
 
In Siberia, there are two kinds of brown bears. Big and bigger! It is no small wonder that the Siberian tiger is nearly extinct.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:30 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
you even changed the size range more that once 
 
 
 
but since you are afarid of what an expert might tell you I'll just copy and paste a answer 
 
 
 
1)Technically, they do not coexist in the wild. Grizzlies are actually a subspecies of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) and are found only in North America.  
 
However, brown bears can also be found in Siberia, but they belong to another subspecies, the Siberian Brown Bear, which is about as big as Grizzly bears.  
 
 
 
Do they meet with tigers? Yes, and they are deadly enemies. There are reports of tigers killing adult bears while they were hibernating, or sometimes attacking them when awake (tigers will usually attack only females and cubs, but some large males have also been taken down). However, bears are usually to powerful for even a tiger to handle. Recently, two large male Siberian tigers were killed by Brown bears. It seems that bears try to steal prey from tigers, and since tigers are not really into sharing, fights are common. Or they used to be, at least. Today there are only a few siberian tigers, and encounters with bears (which are also endangered), are rare.  
 
 
 
So, who would win? Sometimes the bear, sometimes the tiger, that´s what actual encounters tell us... 
 
 
 
thats one answer and i can get more lol 
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:31 PM by chr!$T
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
where are my answers? 
 
 
 
once agian go read wikipedia the article is brown bears 
 
 
 
where they say there are 3 types of brown bears living in siberia 
 
 
 
i'll even give you the scientific names 
 
 
 
Ursus arctos arctos  
 
Ursus arctos beringianus  
 
Ursus arctos collaris  
 
 
 
re-read my comment and understand this time
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:39 PM by chr!$T
Chr1$t...There are 2 kinds of brown bears in Siberia. 
 
Ursus arctos collaris, the Siberian grizzly, also called the black grizzly. It is about the same size as the American grizzly. 
 
Ursus arctos beringianus is a close relative of the Kodiak bear and rivals the Kodiak in size.  
 
 
 
Either bear is more than a match for any tiger.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:40 PM by Toby Ross
Bottom line...the grizzly will kill the tiger every time.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:41 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
here is another answer from an expert that you are afaird of asking. 
 
 
 
 
 
2)Tigers are indeed capable of killing grizzly bears however these two animals don't co-exist. The Siberian or Amur tiger however does co-exist with the Siberian Brown bear. A tigers fighting style is not suited to take on that of a brown bears. And as I have said in my past answers would probably loose to a Siberian brown bear 6/10 times in a face off. However tigers have been known to kill brown bear females and her cubs. I have stated a report that I got from a brown bear book where a Siberian tiger killed one of two brown bear cubs while the mom and the second cub escaped by running up a tree. Of course males are taken as well during hybernation normally where the tiger catches the weak male off gaurd and wraps it's forequarters around the bears head and shoulder and bite's the neck. 
 
 
 
 
 
answers?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:42 PM by chri$T
But, we are talking about a face-off between a full grown male grizzly and a full grown male Siberian tiger. Face-to-face.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:46 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
where are my answers? 
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs gizzly bear 6/10 for the bear
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:47 PM by chr!$T
 
 
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
re read that answer agian and try to understand  
 
 
 
you know don't re-read i will just copy and paste the part of the answer you seemed to miss 
 
 
 
And as I have said in my past answers would probably loose to a Siberian brown bear 6/10 times in a face off. 
 
 
 
can you tell me the two last words in that sentance
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:50 PM by chr!$T
Your answer is based on nothing. 
 
The grizzly has every advantage. 
 
Here we go again. Size / strength / endurance / intelligence / and equal in speed.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:51 PM by Toby Ross
I guess 4 out of 10 times, the bear rolls over and plays dead. Then the tiger rips out his throat.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:53 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
And your answer is? 
 
 
 
have gone to an expert yet? 
 
 
 
you see i have experts to back me up what do you have your opinions?lol 
 
 
 
there are three types of bronw bears living in siberia go and read wikipedia again 
 
 
 
Death of a Thousand claws stated that tiger were put to elephants in caged match one on one 
 
 
 
the size of neither animals is given but there are size ranges for both aniamls  
 
all elephants were full-grown but the tigers who knows 
 
sometimes the elephant survive sometime it does 
 
 
 
an elephant is lager, stronger,intelligent and as stamina and by far one of the most aggressive animals but there you have tigers being able to kill them on face to face clash so why can't a tiger do the same to a bear which is smaller, no where near as strong as an elephant as less stamina and is less intelligent than an elephant?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:01 PM by chr!$T
Jeminy Crickets! 
 
The Bengal tiger killed the elephant. Got it!  
 
Now, back to Siberian tiger vs grizzly bear...Duh?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:16 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
I just re check wikipedia and guess what i found out 
 
 
 
not 2 or 3 but 4 brown bear sub species in in siberia 
 
 
 
want the scientific names? lol
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:16 PM by chr1$T
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
you still do not get the piont lol 
 
 
 
of me showimg those records you are still not understanding
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:18 PM by chr!$T
I am so proud of you! 
 
What does that have to do with this face-off you keep dancing around. The tiger is totally over-matched here. But, you are not adult enough to admit it.  
 
Give me just one logical reason why you believe that the tiger will win 4 out of 10 fights against a grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:19 PM by Toby Ross
A tiger can kill an elephant sometimes. A grizzly can kill a tiger every time. Got it.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:21 PM by Toby Ross
You keep side-stepping the issue here. Why do you believe that a tiger will defeat a grizzly 4 out of 10 times in a face-off encounter?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:24 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
lol 
 
 
 
man you are so silly lol 
 
 
 
i bet you did pretty poor in school didn't you, well thats if you have not droped out yet i mean lol  
 
 
 
my answers you have yet to anser when you answer them i will explain slowly so you can understand why the out comeout of this is  
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs gizzly bear 6/10 for the bear 
 
 
 
i hope you can atleast understand what those numbers mean lol 
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:26 PM by chr!$T
You keep giving me these numbers. But, if you cannot explain them, they are just silly numbers.  
 
Give me just ONE good reason why you believe that a tiger can kill a grizzly 4 out of 10 fights. 
 
And, do not start talking about elephants. I know that tigers sometimes kill elephants. Sheeesh!
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:30 PM by Toby Ross
You know Chr!$T its almost funny that someone can go to Wikipedia and not see that they actaully give out the 4 sub species of bear living in Siberia. 
 
 
 
lol 
 
 
 
I was reading the comments and I was like why don't I have a look to confirm who was correct but I guess that's you again. 
 
 
 
Siberian tiger vs Grizzly bear 6/10 is my best bet.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:36 PM by TLK
And it is hillarious that Chr1$t can look up all of these BIG words, but cannot give me just one little reason for his answer. Perhaps he is simply unable to think for himself.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:40 PM by Toby Ross
TLK  
 
 
 
i am just wondering how much time as he been to wikipeida and missed it 
 
 
 
im very aware 
 
 
 
you see he wants anwsers but at the same time all of my questions are avioded i wonder why? 
 
 
 
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
i said this before and i as usual will say it again until you answer my questions you can have your answer in a heart beat 
 
 
 
trust me 
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs grizzly bear 6/10 for the bear.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:41 PM by chr!$T
6 to 10 for the grizzly.  
 
But, what happens the other 4 fights? You have not explained that.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:43 PM by Toby Ross
oh and like i said i will explain slowly so you can understand ok :D
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:45 PM by chr!$T
It is taking you a long time to look up an answer.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:48 PM by Toby Ross
NUMBERS. 
 
Give me reasons. Or, do you just make up numbers? Why do you believe that a tiger can defeat a grizzly 4 out of 10 fights? 
 
Is this question too much for your brain? Can you not "look up an answer"?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:50 PM by Toby Ross
For me lol 
 
please those question i asked you are so easy lol 
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:51 PM by chr!$T
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
re check the comments i asked you questions first and what do you do? you skip them out completey and now you want me to just forget about my questions and answer yours 
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:55 PM by chr!$T
NO Chr1$t. 
 
The questions are mine. Why do you believe that a tiger can defeat a grizzly 4 out of 10 fights? 
 
Repeat. 
 
Why do you believe that a tiger can out fight a grizzly 4 out of 10 times?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:55 PM by Toby Ross
YOU keep talking about elephants!!!!!!
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:56 PM by Toby Ross
ASK your question.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:57 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
oh you seem a little angry lol 
 
 
 
seriously i can repsot if you want :D
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:59 PM by chr!$T
All I know is you keep talking about elephants???? 
 
WHY do you believe that a tiger can kill a grizzly in 4 out of 10 fights?  
 
Have you still not been able to look up an answer?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:11 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
you keep seeing elephants becuase you only read what you want to read but here they are; 
 
 
 
1)out of 10 fights how much time do you think the bear would win if he was facing a king penguin on land and state your reasons and i will state mine? 
 
 
 
2)Have you contacted an expert yet? 
 
 
 
3)So you think that when a 310 pound tigress or a 480 pound male tiger ambushes a 160-1000 pounds brown bear as soon as the tiger is on the bears back the bear will just roll over and get killed it won't fight back for its life? 
 
 
 
4) Are you saying that a tiger who knows what a bear is will not try to maneuver its way around the grizzly (who is unaware of what a tiger is) so that in an head on confrontation the tiger can kill the bear ambush style?  
 
 
 
5) Do you beleive that all grizzly will react the same way in the persece of a tiger and why? 
 
 
 
6)out of 10 fights how many times do you think a polar bear will kill a kodiak bear?  
 
 
 
now can we please get somewhere?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:14 PM by chr!$T
One way to side-step an ARGUMENT is to avoid the question, which you are doing. Because you have no answer. You do not know why you say the tiger wins 4 out of 10 fights. You just want to say it.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:14 PM by Toby Ross
#1...10 
 
#2...there are no x-sperts. 
 
#3...in an ambush, the tiger goes for the throat. If the grizzly cannot dislodge the tiger quickly enough, thye tiger wins. 
 
#4...no. The bear is not stupid. The tiger is not facing a cow. The tiger cannot outsmart the grizzly. 
 
 
 
Yes.The grizzly will slap the tiger. the tiger goes down. 
 
Polar bear vs Kodiak is an even match. 50%
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:22 PM by Toby Ross
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??? 
 
Chr1$t must be searching for answers to his own questions.  
 
How can he ever hope to answer mine?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:31 PM by Toby Ross
What is so difficult about my question Chr1$t?  
 
You claim that the tiger can defeat the grizzly 4 out of 10 fights.  
 
But, you can give no explanation. 
 
How long is it going to take you to look up an answer?
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:42 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
are you saying out of the 10 bears not one bear will try to swallow the penguin whole and choke on it killing it.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:53 PM by chr!$T
I'll start with that stupid comment about the penguin. Bears are not stupid. They are, in fact, smarter that cats, wolves, dogs, and horses. A grizzly is not going to try to swallow a penguin whole.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:58 PM by Toby Ross
Have you ever heard of instinct? Do you have a clue what instinct is? 
 
Inherited memory.  
 
Brown bears migrated into America from Siberia. Their ancestors lived with first the cave lion, then the American lion. Also, Siberian tigers.  
 
 
 
Besides, a grizzly doesn't care what you are. He is going to knock the tiger in the head and break his neck. You want to say that the tiger will outsmart the grizzly, thinking that, because the grizzly is bigger and stronger, that the cat is going to outsmart him.  
 
Sorry Chr1$t, bears are smarter than cats.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:04 PM by Toby Ross
Again. Grizzly bears are bigger, stronger, smarter, have more endurance, and are just as fast. 
 
I watched on Animal Planet where a grizzly ran down a caribou, caught him, and easily killed him. A tiger cannot do that.  
 
The grizzly has every advantage. Not having ever seen a tiger before makes absolutely no difference. 
 
But, it is nice to know that you admit that a Siberian brown bear, who knows what a tiger is, will win the fight everytime.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:10 PM by Toby Ross
OK. 
 
You said that the tiger will circle around and ambush the bear. Buffalo chips! The bear will know exactly what the tiger is up to.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:13 PM by Toby Ross
Besides... 
 
You are still trying to make an ambush attack out of this. The name of the game is face-off. A face-to-face encounter. Grizzly vs Siberian tiger head-on.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:16 PM by Toby Ross
You stated that the grizzly is a little slow. Not so. Just because he is big does not make him slow. And, good luck on finding a weak spot.  
 
I believe that is is just a simple matter of you not being able to admit that the tiger is out-matched by the grizzly bear. You are still trying to make this an ambush attack.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:21 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
you read and still do not understand 
 
when i said the bear was slow i meant in his speed not his smarts 
 
why do i even bother if you got that one wrong lol  
 
 
 
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
you go about instincts all wrong and let me show you of a more modern data 
 
 
 
lions eat warthogs… right 
 
a warthog first reaction when he sees a lion is to run for his dear life… right 
 
 
 
but there is a video on youtube of a lioness who laterally gets her ass kicked by the smaller warthog 
 
this lioness was a captive one and just like the grizzly who as never seen a tiger before the lioness as also never seen a warthog before  
 
you say instincts will kick in and let the bear know how to deal with a tiger but shouldn’t instinct kick in for the lioness and let her know that a warthog is food. 
 
Another recent case have you every seen swamp cats before which was a documentary on a type of lion pride that specialized in taking down prey in water, we all know that lions and hyenas and born enemies right 
 
But the lions form swamp cats have never seen hyenas before and because they have absolutely no knowledge of what hyenas are callable of 5 lioness let the hyenas steal from right under their noses 
 
Shouldn’t instinct kick here as well in and let the lions know the hyenas are the ones that should be fleeing from them 
 
Tell me why does instinct not kick in here in these cases? 
 
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:28 PM by chr!$T
Toby Ross  
 
and lets get back to question #4 
 
what did it say 
 
this time read carefully this time  
 
 
 
Are you saying that a tiger who knows what a bear is will not try to maneuver its way around the grizzly (who is unaware of what a tiger is) so that in an head on confrontation the tiger can kill the bear ambush style?  
 
 
 
why do i even bother
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:30 PM by chr!$T
lol chr!$T 
 
 
 
i don't see why that surprises you that he got it wrong he as alos gotten many others as well  
 
 
 
lol
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:59 PM by Salva
Yes I saw the swamp lions. Black bears run from dogs because they associate them with humans.  
 
Yes, I know that the tiger will attempt to circle behind the grizzly because he knows that he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a pizza oven against a grizzly. 
 
 
 
But, you seem to think that the grizzly will simply stand still and let the tiger manuver around behind him. No. 
 
Oh, and I understood what you were saying when you said that the grizzly is a little slow. No he isn't. Just because he is big, does not make him slow ( speed ). The grizzly is just as fast as the tiger, but not short-winded.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:59 PM by Toby Ross
Salva. I didn't get anything wrong. 
 
Chr1$t cannot give me ONE reason why a tiger can defeat a grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 7:01 PM by Toby Ross
The grizzly stands 8 feet tall. All 800 pounds of him. The 600 pound tiger ( rarely this big ) charges towards the grizzly bear. The tiger springs. The grizzly slaps the tiger with enough force to crush the skull of a bull. The tiger goes down. THE END.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 7:10 PM by Toby Ross
Your version Chr1$t. 
 
The tiger tries to circle behind the grizzly. The tiger is affraid of a face-to-face encounter. 
 
But, the grizzly is too smart for this trick. The bear easily turns, keeping the tiger in sight.  
 
Finally, the frustrated tiger attacks. The grizzly kills him. THE END.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 7:14 PM by Toby Ross
instinct = inherited memory. After millions of years of bears living in the same environment with big cats, the grizzly will have no trouble with one tiger.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 7:18 PM by Toby Ross
I'm still waitting on just one reason why you believe a tiger can kill a grizzly in a face-to-face encounter. 
 
#1- because the tiger will sneak behind the grizzly. NO. That is not a face-off. 
 
#2- because the tiger will kill an elephant and the elephant will fall on the grizzly. NO. That would mean that the elephant killed the grizzly.  
 
#3- because while the tiger is circling around the bear, the grizzly will choke to death on a penguin? NO, not likely.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 7:24 PM by Toby Ross
The grizzly is bigger. 
 
The grizzly is smarter. 
 
The grizzly is stronger. 
 
The grizzly has a more powerful bite force. 
 
The grizzly has more endurance. 
 
The grizzly is equally as fast. 
 
The tiger has no advantage over the bear. 
 
 
 
I have proven my point. Chr1$t can come up with nothing in favor of his triger. All he dishes out is double talk. I have proven my point. There is no need for my return. Chr1$t will never admit to his utter defeat.
Posted @ Saturday, December 26, 2009 9:54 PM by Toby Ross
Ussuri Brown Bear ( black grizzly )
Posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 6:18 AM by Toby Ross
The grizzly bear destroy the tiger.The tiger haven't chance,
Posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 12:46 PM by niki
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
I gave you an explanation whether or not you want to believe is your business. 
 
 
 
i tiger can execute a much faster attack than ant bear because tigers are build for such 
 
 
 
you say a bear can run done a caribou and a tiger can  
 
 
 
thats true because the bear as to use is stamina to tire out he prey first before he can get to kill it 
 
 
 
if a bear tried to execute an attack like the tiger then the caribou would have been long gone 
 
 
 
but if the tiger's calculations is correct by the time the caribou knew what hit him the tiger is already at his throat 
 
 
 
you don't believe the experts because they don't agree with your opinion buts thats ok 
 
 
 
you are just a denial 
 
 
 
but like i said i have experts to back me up the only thing you have is your opinion  
 
 
 
and if this was a court case you opinions would be dismissed 
 
 
 
Siberian tiger vs grizzly bear 6/10 for the bear 
 
 
 
the experts say this 
 
Posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:14 PM by chr!$T
Toby Ross 
 
 
 
if i thought the bear would have just stand still and let the tiger circle it then the outcome of the fight would have 9/10 for the tiger 
 
 
 
and by the way dogs out smart bears by a landslides. 
 
 
 
 
 
Salva 
 
 
 
it does not surprise me that he could not understand my explanations 
 
 
 
just look at one of my past comments Wednesday December 16, 2009 10:02 PM 
 
and then read what he said on Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:42 AM 
 
 
 
clearly he does not understands what he reads because i made no comment about a video of a 900 pounds wild Siberian tiger(which by the way is ridiculous) 
 
but there he goes ranting about how i told him to watch a video  
 
 
 
if he got that wrong then what else could he have gotten wrong? 
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs grizzly bear 6/10 for the bear 
 
Posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:25 PM by Chr!$T
And look again i bet anyone here that he can not point out where i said a bear was slow because of his size 
 
 
 
i even wonder if he reads all of my comments lol 
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs grizzl bear 6/10 for the bear 
 
Posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:29 PM by chr!$T
Hey chr!$T 
 
 
 
I was wondering when you would get here but I thing Toby Ross is contradicting is own words when he posted this: 
 
 
 
<<"Big and bigger! It is no small wonder that the Siberian tiger is nearly extinct.">> 
 
 
 
If he believes that bears are the reasons why tigers are endangered then I'm pretty sure tigers are also the reason why bears are endangered as well. 
 
 
 
Don't you think so too because both animals are very much close to extinction. 
 
 
 
Siberian tiger vs Grizzly bear 6/10 for the bear is my best bet  
 
Posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:36 PM by TLK
Hey wats up 
 
 
 
lol if he really believes that then only God knows what he knows about these animals 
 
 
 
my take he knows nothing of course lol 
 
 
 
and if you can trust wikipeida over an expert then i would say you really have a problem because wikipedia is just as useful as this site 
 
 
 
in other words its very unreliable 
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs grizzly 6/10 for the bear 
 
 
 
lol he even went away without giving me an explanation for the two lions story i gave 
 
 
 
thats just like him to avoid something lol 
 
Posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:43 PM by Chr!$T
chr!$T 
 
 
 
lol like you expect him to stay 
 
 
 
I have been asked a question and I my self is not sure of the answer. 
 
 
 
Can you help me out? 
 
 
 
But later because I'm not at my house now and I'll soon have to leave the computer anyway.  
 
 
 
Siberian tiger vs Grizzly bear 6/10 for the bear is my best bet. 
 
 
 
Later
Posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:50 PM by TLK
Sure 
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs grizzly 6/10 for the bear
Posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:52 PM by chr!$T
You are still just playing with words. I gave you a full list of the advantages of the grizzly. All you can say is, "the tiger will sneak around behind the bear". And you believe that the grizzly will just stand still and let him do this.  
 
 
 
I know full well why wild animals are going extinct. People! 
 
Yes, you did say that grizzly bears are slow. They are not. 
 
Dogs do not out smart bears. Take away the hunter with the gun, and the dogs lose. Grizzly bears have been known to fight off a whole pack of wolves, which are stronger and smarter than dogs.  
 
*In a face to face confrontation, which this site is supposed to be about, the grizzly will kill the tiger.  
 
Now...do you still want to talk about elephants and penguins?
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 5:17 AM by Toby Ross
Make me a list of the advantages that you believe a tiger has over the grizzly. Here ( again ) is a list of some of the advantages that the grizzly has. 
 
SIZE - STRENGTH - GREATER BITE FORCE - STAMINA - INTELLIGENCE. 
 
If you cannot do this, it is understandable.
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 5:35 AM by Toby Ross
I will give in just this much... 
 
IF both animals weigh the same thing: Let's say a 600 pound grizzly face-to-face against a 600 pound tiger, then perhaps the grizzly will win 6 out of 10 fights. 
 
These so-called experts give the bear 6 o 10 odds probably figuring on bears of various sizes.
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 6:39 AM by Toby Ross
EXPERTS. 
 
Jane Goodall is an expert on chimpanzees because she spent years living with them. 
 
Diane Fossey was an expert on gorillas for the same reason. 
 
Noone is living with Siberian tigers. Noone is walking along side-by-side with the tiger as he hunts. Naturalists get glimpses of tigers. They see where tigers have been. They see footprints in the snow. There are no real experts.
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 6:44 AM by Toby Ross
Timothy Treadwell, the grizzly man. 
 
He lived among grizzy bears. He can be called an expert. But, he never witnessed a grizzly / tiger confrontation. So, we have no experts to go to here. 
 
Therefore, we look at the evidence. The evidence being the list of advantages. I showed you mine...
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 7:18 AM by Toby Ross
I am through playing with you children. I know that, even with ALL of the evidence stacked up against the Siberian tiger, you will never admit that you are wrong. 
 
It would take a grown-up to do that. Goodbye Chr1$t and the rest of you children.
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 9:39 AM by Toby Ross
Hey chr!$T 
 
 
 
Toby Ross mentioned something about about the bear being smarter how true is that?
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 12:36 PM by Salva
Well Salva 
 
 
 
Toby Ross is very much incorrect for one thing no research has ever been carried out to compare the intelligence of both animals. 
 
 
 
unless he can show me one shred of scientific evidences that bears are smarter than cats (which i know he can't) 
 
then he has no argument. 
 
 
 
once again he comes and not understand the reason why i gave the accounts of tigers killing elephants 
 
 
 
his theory is that because the bear is stronger and bigger and as more stamina it can beat a tiger on a head-on match. 
 
 
 
elephants are also bigger and stronger and out smart both animal by a landslides and tigers can still beat them 
 
 
 
he believes because the bear has these he can overwhelm the tiger well the elephant also overwhelm the tiger more than any bear could, not to mention elephants have thicker skin and are smarter and yet we still have tigers beating them 
 
 
 
if he can't read a comment and understand its meaning then whats the use of trying to explain anything to him at all? 
 
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 12:52 PM by chr!$T
and then there he goes again 
 
 
 
he said i claimed that the bear was slow because of his size and yet he has no proof of me saying that 
 
 
 
i did indeed said the bear was slow but i did not say he was slow because of his  
 
 
 
unless Toby Ross can point this out which he can't 
 
 
 
i also said the bear was only a little slow 
 
key word 'little' 
 
 
 
and then he goes and say i said the bear would stand still and yet he cannot copy past where i said this 
 
 
 
so on top of being someone who reads and not understand he also lies 
 
 
 
yes that just like him 
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs grizzly 6/10 for the bear 
 
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 1:01 PM by chr!$T
Like I said you were wasting your time 
 
 
 
Can you give me a list of the most intelligent aniamls?
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 1:06 PM by Salva
Salva 
 
 
 
well i'm not quite sure but here is what i thing 
 
 
 
hyenas  
 
dogs 
 
rats 
 
chimps 
 
elephants 
 
crows 
 
dolphins(of curse) 
 
orangutan 
 
gorillas( i guess ) 
 
pigs 
 
parrots 
 
 
 
 
 
and if Toby Ross does come back 
 
 
 
tiger advantages 
 
 
 
speed, 
 
can execute a much faster attack than any bear, 
 
knowledge of the animal(experience) 
 
ferocity 
 
tigers can jump at a vertical ht of over 12 ft, bears only stand 8 ft 
 
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 1:22 PM by chr!$T
www.all-creatures.org/bear/b-bearintel.html  
 
tigers are not faster than a grizzly. 
 
It will not help the tiger to jump over the bears head.  
 
elephants again?????
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 1:47 PM by Toby Ross
Chr!$T 
 
 
 
Is your old gmail address still in use? 
 
 
 
Siberian Tiger vs Grizzly Bear 6/10 for the bear is my best bet.
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 1:58 PM by TLK
Salva 
 
 
 
well actually birds in general are smart because more species of birds use tools more than any other animals 
 
 
 
yes its still in use TLK 
 
 
 
Toby Ross  
 
 
 
well guess who comes back after saying he was going to leave twice. lol  
 
 
 
i can show you records of real bears at hand that you would claim are a stories. 
 
 
 
so far all i have been doing is giving you the benefit of the doubt, if I was really taking you seriously you will be much dumfounded, trust me. 
 
 
 
it can't be helped that you don't understand ok 
 
 
 
and not because one man (note one man) claims (note claims) that the intelligence of a bear can be compared to chimps means anything 
 
 
 
did he carry out any actual research? 
 
 
 
and the tiger's jumping ability can sure help it in any fight not to mention that tigers are more aggressive that bears,  
 
 
 
the site says grizzly mothers show their cubs how to find food. Are you saying a mother tigress does not show her cubs how to hunt as well? 
 
 
 
and the lion story about instinct and whatever still as no explanation from you yet  
 
 
 
and my question was can you show me where it says bears out smart cats? 
 
 
 
siberian tiger vs grizzly 6/10 for the bear
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 2:41 PM by Chr!$T
As a matter of fact if any bear is more intelligent than cats that would be the black bear 
 
 
 
and a bear’s intelligence does not help it in a fight  
 
 
 
much like how a gorilla’s intelligent does not help it in a fight with a tiger 
 
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 2:44 PM by chr!$T
Still wasting your time chr!$T 
 
 
 
Thanks 
 
 
 
Can you give me a list of birds that use tools aside from crows?
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 3:08 PM by Salva
Well i know but ... 
 
 
 
About the birds 
 
 
 
here: 
 
green heron( use fishing bait) 
 
 
 
woodpecker finch ( use small twigs to reach grub in trees) 
 
 
 
Egyptian vultures( use rocks to break ostrich eggs and they drop bones from high altitude in order to reach the bone marrow)  
 
 
 
Seagulls (drop oysters to open them) 
 
 
 
I remember a bird in africa that uses the thorns on tree to hold its dinner down because the muscle in its legs are weak and they cannot use them(unless they want it to break) but I forgot the name. 
 
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 3:29 PM by chr1$T
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm 
 
 
 
you guys need to check this out 
 
at average size or the same size has a tiger the grizzly as no chance of a rats ass
Posted @ Monday, December 28, 2009 4:24 PM by Daniel
Daniel 
 
 
 
 
 
a grizzly bear will kill a tiger most of the time in a face of 
 
 
 
6/10 for the bear
Posted @ Wednesday, December 30, 2009 7:24 PM by chr!$T
This is the scariest fight on this site so far. This is the one I wouldn't want to be in the middle of. I tend to think the bear could win, but wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong. They are both bad, bad, bad creatures; along with rhino, hippo, and elephant, as close to monsters on land as you'll find.
Posted @ Friday, January 01, 2010 12:48 PM by Mark in Iowa
Damon...just type in grizzly bear and go from site to site. Here are the first 4 sites I cam to. They all agree about the grizzly size. 
 
www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/grizzly_bear.htm 
 
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/246460/grizzly-bear 
 
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/grizzly-bear.htm 
 
http://nhptv.org/natureworks/grizzly.htm
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:17 AM by Toby Ross
Some fights, such as lion vs Bengal tiger and Kodiak bear vs polar bear can go either way. But, grizzly vs tiger, in a face to face fight can only end one way. The grizzly is much more powerful. He would kill the tiger in 10 out of 10 fights.
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:21 AM by Toby Ross
Damon...I went to your "elite" site and found nothing more than a bullshit site which is ALL about the lion being the "King of Beasts". 
 
Look at the National Geo site and other more reliable sites. 
 
The Americn blackbear is from 300 to 650 pounds, with rare individuals being over 800 pounds. And these are smaller than a grizzly. A grizzly is a powerhouse of brute strength which can overpower the big cat every time, as easily as a wolf can kill a sheep.
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:56 AM by Toby Ross
You need to read more than just that single bullcrap site of false info. The record American black bear was 880 pounds, shot by an A-hole hunter. Male American black bears average from 300 to 500 pounds with 600 pound bears not uncommon. An American black bear stands from 6 feet to 7 feet tall. 
 
I consider the black bear to be an even match against a lion. I would not bet on this fight unless I were desperate for money, as it could go either way. But, if I need the cash, I would place my bet on the bear.  
 
Are you affraid to read further than elite.kudu?
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 9:28 AM by Toby Ross
OK...let's just say that a 600 pound grizzly faces a 600 pound tiger. I would say bear over tiger 9 out of 10 fights. And this is if the tiger is just really damn lucky. The same can be said for 500 pound lion meets 500 pound grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 9:33 AM by Toby Ross
Power of predators: 
 
#1- polar bear. 
 
#2- Kodiak bear. 
 
#3- grizzly bear. 
 
#4- Siberian tiger. 
 
#5- American black bear. 
 
#6- Bengal tiger. 
 
#7- gorilla. 
 
#8- lion.  
 
#9- jaguar. 
 
#10- leopard / puma.
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 9:58 AM by Toby Ross
and i say again 
 
 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
you guys need to check this out  
 
 
 
at average size or the same size has a tiger the grizzly as no chance of a rats ass
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 1:46 PM by Daniel
top 10 predetors on land 
 
 
 
#1 tiger, no doubt 
 
#2 Kodiak bear 
 
#3 Polar bear 
 
#4 Lion 
 
#5 grizzly bear 
 
#5 jaguar 
 
#6 Black bear 
 
#7 gorrila 
 
#8 Leopard 
 
#9 cougar 
 
#10 Spotted hyena 
 
 
 
seriously, a black bear a better predator then a bengal tiger and lion is just a big joke.
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 4:51 PM by Mr animalia
why tiger is the best predetor is because it kills anything on land you can think of, From 1000 lb + Brown bears to 7 ton elephants to 20ft saltwater crocodiles to 600 lb chinese black bear to 30 ft reticulated pythons. Nothing could take down this mighty predetor.  
 
All what a polar bear preys on is Seals and maybe a walrus when on land. compare that to the tiger ! the kodiak ussualy eats only prey on fish that are like 1 ft long. The tiger is much more aggresive and better fighters even though bears are heavier the tiger still owns all.
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:28 PM by Mr Animalia
The grizzly which is at least 3 times more powerful than the tiger, would shake the cat like a fox terrier with a rat. A lion or a tiger would not stand a snowball's chance in an active volcano against a full grown male grizzly bear.
Posted @ Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:46 PM by Toby Ross
The big cats are the world's top predators on land. I have only the highest respect for the Siberian tiger. He is the top predator in his domain. He is a true hunter, and has been known to kill even big brown bears in well calculated ambush attacks. 
 
The grizzly and his brown bear relatives, are more scavenger / forager style animals. A grizzly bear has evolved from predator to one who simply takes his meal from the hunters ( like T-rex ).  
 
He can do this because he knows that he is the strongest animal in the land.  
 
Some brown bears simply follow tigers to take their kills. They do this regularly.  
 
This site is not about can a tiger kill a brown bear ( grizzly ). Yes, they have been known to kill female bears, sleeping bears, and ( in rare cases ) even grown males in ambush attacks. 
 
But, this site is about a face-to-face encounter. The grizzly would win 10 out of 10 fights. Easily.
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 4:30 AM by Toby Ross
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html  
 
( if you dare ).
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 10:21 AM by Toby Ross
the site i gave have everything on it. 
 
 
 
it even have a male siberian tiger which was less that 500 pounds that eats brown bears all year round awake or asleep he even took on bears twice his size face to face and kick the bears ass then ate him 
 
and shit him out later 
 
tiger kills bear every time the only bear that can kill a tiger is a polar bear and thats because he is really big and nothing else 
 
tigers even have the stamina to keep up with bears in a fight  
 
can anyone here show me anything else that says otherwise? i bet not 
 
if the bear kills the tiger he just fucking lucky and the tiger is sick or injured but no brown bear can kill a healthy tiger in a face to face fight 
 
 
 
tigers kills and eats and shits out bears everytime. 
 
the bear have no chance
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 2:21 PM by Daniel
At lion vs black bear, Damon claims that an American grizzly is the size of a sloth bear. 5 feet tall and 300 pounds. It is obvious that Damon has never seen a full grown grizzly bear and that he reads only what he wants to believe. Not the facts.
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 2:23 PM by Toby Ross
Look, tiger reaches 675 lb, Grizzly is 750 lb. tiger is faster, more alige better fighter. Bengal tigers which are slightly smaller then siberians live together with Chinese black bears. and the bear always runs away and when it fights it loses 10 out of 10. A grizzly isn't much bigger then a black bear. 600 lb vs 750 lb. now if a bengal tiger destroys a black bear would't the siberian tiger destoy the grizzly ? And if a siberian tiger beats a russian brown bear which can get almost twice as big. It would beat the grizzly 8 out of 10 if the bear was lucky enough.
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 2:51 PM by Mr animalia
Mr animalia i think your wrong a tiger will kill the bear all the time 
 
In the site I showed there was one case where a large male brown bear came saw a tiger's tracks and ran like a dog would with his tail between his legs, if the bear knew he would win all the time he would not have run away like some scared little kid 
 
tigress can fight can kill bears in face to face fights and what i am saying is not just my opinion all of this happen 
 
tiger will kill, eat and shit out bears every time 
 
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 3:13 PM by Daniel
how can bears steal from tigers regularly and both animals are close to extinction 
 
if bears can steal from tigers on a regular basis then tigers can kill bears on a regular basis it would not be branded as just rare cases 
 
if bears steal from tigers all the time then tigers kill bears all the time too 
 
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 3:21 PM by Daniel
Daniel, I said a tiger would beat a BLACK bear every time and yes I agree. even a tigres could beat a grizzly and a male tiger would just destroy it.  
 
 
 
P.S. what the heck are you talking about toby a Grizzly is not twice as big as a tiger! Tiger: 419-675 lb and 850 lb on max while grizzly 500-750 lb and 1000 lb on max.
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 3:41 PM by Mr animalia
That hump on a grizzly's back is solid muscle. A grizzly is made for digging in concrete hard frozen ground. He has powerful arms, shoulders, and claws. He rips open stumps, turns over fallen trees, and turns over boulders in search of food. No big cat comes remotely close to a grizzly's strength. 
 
A grizzly has an incredible sense of smell. A grizzly can trail a tiger and easily take a tiger's kill. The tiger will not dare to fight the grizzly face-to-face.  
 
Big cats are built for stealth and ambush. Bears are built for a face-to-face fight. No lion and no tiger will ever beat a grizzly in a face-to-face encounter.
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 7:54 PM by Toby Ross
Daniel. The grizzly does not steal food from a tiger. He takes it by force. The tiger can only back away and allow the much more powerful bear to have the bloody feast.  
 
In the prehistoric world, T-rex lived much the same way. The T-rex trailed the raptors, which were the better hunters. Then, the rex would calmly take the kill away from the smaller, more delicate raptors.  
 
Being a scavenger, like a grizzly or a T-rex simply places him at the top of the food chain.
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 8:09 PM by Toby Ross
I am probably underestimating the grizzly when I say that the average grizzly is about 5 times stronger than any tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, January 03, 2010 8:24 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, Seriously a grizzly is not even close to 5 times as strong, in fact a tiger can get just as big as a grizzly, And if it came down to pure strenght the tiger is stronger. the bear is SLIGHLY heavier but most of it weight comes from heavy sceletons and lost of fat. tigers don't have as much fat and smaller sceleton, there weight comes from there huge muscles. 
 
68% of the people voted the tiger to be the winner, the creator of this battle made the tiger the winner. Now youre trying to tell all of us that the grizzly would beat the tiger every time? THATS JUST HILARIOUS
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 12:54 AM by Mr animalia
Animalia...tigers are built for stealth and ambush. A tiger has claws designed to hold onto the prey while it grips the animals throat to strangle it.  
 
A grizzly is built purely for power. That hump on it's shoulders is pure muscle. It digs in frozen ground that is as hard as concrete. It rips open stumps, turns over fallen trees, and overturns boulders looking for food. 
 
Before Euro-Americans slaugtered most of the American bison, as well as the grizzly bears, Grizzlys used to hunt bison. A grizzly can slap a bison just one time and break it's neck. If a tiger hit a bison, he could do no more than make the bison angry. 
 
Grizzlys are built for power while tigers are built for stealth. The tiger is a better hunter. The grizzly is stronger. That is why some brown bears trail tigers to take their kills.  
 
Face to face, the tiger will back down from the grizzly and allow the bear to have it's kill. But, if the tiger does try to defend it's meal, the grizzly will kill the big cat, perhaps with a single hit.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 3:41 AM by Tby Ross
toby, no you are wrong. A grizzly is NOT like a kodiak or a russian bear. They are smaller and weaker. A bear could never kill a tiger in one slap considering the tiger is the same size. And a tiger would NEVER back down from his prey. the grizzly would aviod the tiger just like the black bear. besides, 5-8% of the tigers diet is brown bears. and with the grizzly only being half the size of the russian brown bear, the tiger will easily rip the grizzly apart.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 12:48 PM by Mr animalia
Smaller and weaker? You and Damon seem to think that a grizzly is the size of a sun bear. Grizzly's are bigger than American black bears. Black bears range from 300 to 600 pounds. 700 pound black bears are not rare. The record black bear was 880 pounds, shot by a hunter. 
 
 
 
Any bear that can break the neck of a bison, is more than strong enough to kill a tiger. 
 
Tigers kill bears only by stealth and ambush. In a face-off, the grizzly will win every time. 
 
To say that a tiger is stronger than a grizzly is just pure ignorance. You have done absolutely no research. If lions and tigers were as strong as bears, they would not need retractable claws and would not resort to killing by strangulation. A grizzly usually kills with a single hit.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 1:00 PM by Toby Ross
Toby i showed a link with records of tigers killing and eating and shiting out brown bears 
 
when the tigers kill its both by ambush and face to face attack what you have a reading problem? 
 
a tigress even woke up a mother bear and harass the bear  
 
the bear stayed in the cave and let the tigress drag her sorry ass out killed,eat and then shit her out 
 
as a bear ever did that to a tiger? 
 
if it as show me 
 
bears even see tiger tracks and run away or try to climb trees 
 
tiger kill bears every time 
 
like i said this happened in real life its not just my imagination like it is yours 
 
if bears steal from tigers then tigers kill bears 
 
it that simple you know 
 
there is even a record of a lion killing a grizzly bear 
 
if a lion can do it a tiger can too
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 1:09 PM by Daniel
Daniel, stop reading comic books and go to:  
 
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 1:18 PM by Toby Ross
I am being honest about this. You are making up stories. Tigers kill bears by ambush, and sometimes while the bear is in hibernation. Even a much smaller and toothless sloth bear can chase off a tiger in a face to face encounter. Against a grizzly, the tiger stands no chance what-so-ever.  
 
You seem to forget, the tiger is just a big cat. Did you know that, a stronger pit bull terrier can kill a common housecat?
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 1:25 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, I give you 6 reasons for why a tiger would win. 
 
1-yes a grizzly is bigger then a sloth bear, but its nothing compared to a russian brown bear. 
 
Russian bears: 900-1500 lb 
 
Grizzly bear: 500-750 lb and RARLY 1000 lb 
 
2- russian brown bears make up 5-8% of the tigers diet, tearing a grizzly will be easier 
 
3-daniel showed you records of tigers killing brown bears 
 
4-if a tigress can beat the living crap out of a black bear I think a male tiger can do the same to a grizzly. 
 
5- go on youtube and find "mother cougar vs grizzly bear". so if that bear runs away from a 100 lb cougar imagine what a 700 lb tiger could do to it! 
 
6- tigers have experience fighting brown bears while grizzly bears never battled a cat this big. 
 
 
 
give up, you lost
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 1:32 PM by Mr animalia
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm  
 
 
 
well toby you r the 1 making up story like Mr Animaila said i have records have tigers killing eating and shiting out bears 
 
someone else even posted a record of a lion beating the hell out of a grizzly bear 
 
toby if i showed you records and you say im telling a story then i guess that makes you some one with a reading problem or just a liar like that other person said 
 
i even visited the lion black bear blog  
 
and even the person who agreed with you is telling you to re-read his comments 
 
thats just down right stupid of you 
 
to have so many persons telling you the same thing to re-read come on 
 
can you show me more that 5 records of brown bears killing tigers? 
 
i bet not but i already showed you more than 15 records of tigers and tigress killing and eating brown bears 
 
even large male brown bears runing from tiger's track 
 
what do you have?
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 2:01 PM by Daniel
A grizzly is built like a tank. Rock-hard muscle. A tiger is slinky. A 700 pound grizzy would so easily kill a 600 pound tiger. 700 pounds is a large grizzly, but some are much bigger. 600 pounds is a large tiger too. At these sizes, the grizzly is at least 5 times more powerful than the tiger which is built slimmer for speed and stealth. But, even with his bulk, the bear is just as fast. 
 
A grizzly could run down a tiger, catch him, and kill him.  
 
Without the element of surprize, the tiger has no chance of winning. He is an ambush killer. The grizzly however, is used to a head to head fight. That, besides his weight and strength, is a big advantage.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 2:07 PM by Toby Ross
In Old California, when owned by Spain, they had regular arena games, similar to ancient Greece, but only fighting animal against animal. The records of these fights are still in California. I read the book that showed the details of every fight. 
 
They had a Mexican grizzly who killed everything imported intro California for the games. This included both lions and tigers. 
 
I found a little info online at: 
 
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html 
 
BUT, anyone with even a spark of common since can look at both animals and know that, if the tiger has a brain, he will hide.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 2:17 PM by Toby Ross
YES I DID answer that animal. The word is AMBUSH. A tiger sneaks up from behind the bear and attacks unexpectedly. But, this site is about a face to face encounter where the tiger does not stand a chance.  
 
The grizzly is used to frontal attacks. 
 
 
 
The grizzly is roughly 5 times stronger than the cat. 
 
In the average sized animals, the grizzly is bigger and heavier. 
 
The grizzly has stamina. 
 
Regardless of what some have said here, grizzly bears are not slow nor clumsy. A grizzly is as fast as a tiger.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 2:24 PM by Toby Ross
Wow  
 
I see more people here much of late 
 
Mr Animalia you are wasting your time and there is a very high chance of him not answering your question. 
 
Look at how many questions Chr!$T asked and they have yet to be answered 
 
Toby is living in a fantasy world, 
 
Daniel nice set of records but even you are wasting your time. 
 
You even showed a record of a large male brown bear fleeing from a tiger's tracks,TRACKS not even the tiger itself and he(Toby) says a grizzly will run down a tiger or the tiger will hide 
 
it would be the other way around  
 
lol pathetic 
 
And those pit fight do not give the details of the animals health
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 2:26 PM by Salva
The records i showed most of which took place in the wild not in a manmade pitt fight but 
 
there is even a pitt fight there where the tiger kick the hell out of the bear and the owners have to save the bear and pull his sorry ass out of the cage to save his life 
 
the tiger like always kills and eats and shits out the bear every time 
 
the bear as no chance  
 
 
 
i figure as much Salva
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 2:32 PM by Daniel
Toby 
 
A tiger slim? what are you talking about a tiger is jacked with muscle! steel muscle! Tigers are much more muscular then bears, bears look bulkier because of there heavy sceletons and more bodyfat. tigers are faster, more muscular, and better fighters. the bear is a fat and a bit heavier. and cats are stronger then bears when they're the same size. 
 
tiger vs grizzly is like a fight between a muscular and fat guy almost the same size, and with the muscle guy being faster and better fighter he will always win.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 2:34 PM by Mr animalia
Let's put this into perspective. 
 
Out west, not so many years back, cattle were being killed by wolves, cougars, and grizzly bears.  
 
The wolves hunt in packs. They simply tore a cow to pieces. The cougar hunts by stealth and ambush. He sneaks up behind the cow, then holds on with his sharp retractible claws, and strangles the cow with his jaws around the cows neck. This takes from 10 to 30 minutes. A grizzly walks up to the cow or bull, and hits it in the head with one paw. The cow then has either a broken neck, a crushed skull, or both. One hit and it's over. 
 
IF the tiger was as strong as a grizzly, he would not spend all that time strangling a deer or a cow. He would simply hit it.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 4:28 PM by Toby Ross
The wolves are like a gang of teenage punks, ganging up on one. 
 
The cougar ( or tiger ) is like a thief who sneaks up behind someone and slices his or her throat. 
 
The grizzly just walks up boldly ( like a real man ) and hits his opponent in the face.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 4:32 PM by Toby Ross
In all honesty, and I am totally serious, anyone who thinks a cat is stronger than a grizzly is an idiot. 
 
AND what difference does it make if bears in Asia are bigger than bears in America, although I believe you are full of buffalo crap. It makes no difference. And Christ asked ignorant questions.
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 4:36 PM by Toby Ross
Tigers don't sneak up on ther prey. they sneak till they com in 30 feet of there prey. then they jump up the bull sees them and runs away. the tiger runs behind the bull then jumps on its back, takes it down and bites it neck. 
 
and what are you talking about? a bear killing a bull in one slap is like trying to kill a whale with a knife, its impossible. I'll believe you if you post a video of that happening.now go search Tiger vs bear on youtube and on every video the bear gets powned 
 
the largest animal a grizzly bear takes down is a moosse(1 ton), the largest a tiger takes down is an elephant(7 ton)
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 5:46 PM by Mr animalia
Mr.Animalia,First of all if elephants coexisted with grizzlies, you would hear of grizzlies killing elephants. Second,if a 700 lb tiger jumped on a grizzly it would only be due to hybernation.A tiger wouldnt be so stupid to try and confront a grizzly; ok in this instance for debate puposes i guess the tiger is stupid and a mock battle would last only until the grizzly swatted the tiger with the strongest and largest claws of all carnavoirs and turns the tiger into kitty litter ok?
Posted @ Monday, January 04, 2010 6:08 PM by Go Blue
Go blue, you really think a grizzly will scare off a tiger? seriously, Tigers and russian brown bears share the same terretory, and they make up 5-8% of there diet. Now considering a Russian brown bear is on average 1000 lb, a grizzly on average is 600 lb. you really think a grizzly will kill a tiger if the russian bear isn't able of doing that? 
 
tiger are muscle! SOLID MUSCLE. bears are fussy fat and heavy sceletons that make them look big, nothing else. 
 
there is no way a grizzly can take down a tiger in one slap. NO WAY and a grizzly killing an elephant? I wannee see that happenig! 
 
if tou still dont believe me: one picture is worth a 1000 words, go on youtube and type 'bear vs tiger'. every video you find the bear gets powned. Now if you still dont believe me go on all the records daniel has on the comments page. 
 
i'll tell you how the fight would go like. the bear has its prey, a tiger commes in and roares. the bear runnes away. IF the bear was dumb enough to fight. it would lose, as fast as lightning the tiger would jump on the bears back, take it down and deliver it a fatal bite and its bye bye teddy. 
 
 
 
and "go blue" , you are toby ross right?
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:29 AM by Mr animalia
Grizzly surely has the upper hand in this fight.It is well armed,stronger,intellegent and protected by thick fur.The Siberian Tiger's best chance of winning a 1700 pound Grizzly is to use it's speed to stay out of the Grizzly's reach and attack from behind.But the Grizzly will win the fight 6/10 times.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:10 AM by aravindlal
Mr. Animalia. Let me put it in a much more basic understanding.Its like driving a mustang head on into a fully loaded semi.The mustang being the siberian tiger and the the semi= the grizzly that the tiger was stupid enough to confront. Hell I could kill a tiger if it was sleeping.Show me a video of a tiger killing a grizzly and not the multiple referenced overly biased drunk on vodka wantabe Nat Geo film producers version of wild kingdom.It wont happen.And no I am Not Toby
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:31 AM by Go Blue
aravindlal, There are no 1700 lb grizzly bears, some 1000 lb ones, but no 1700 lb.tigers are more aggresive, better fighters, much faster, and can get almost as big as grizzly bears + there body has more muscle 
 
and go blue look on top of the page, there is a video of a siberian tiger killing a adult brown bear, considering russian brown bears are bigger then grizzly bear, the tiger will EASY kill your grizzly
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:36 AM by Mr animalia
Mr.Animalia.I viewed the video of the tigers eating a stag and the one killing a sloth bear and all of the other cute kitty features. Where is your video proof of a siberian tiger killing a FULL GROWN Grizzly? You have been Duped by the U Tube nation!
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:55 AM by Go Blue
tiger has more muscle than grizzly. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha THAT IS SO FUNNY ha ha ha ha ha ha SO REDICULOUS! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha THE IDIOT! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 12:36 PM by Toby Ross
toby ross, you dont get it do you? for the last time, the only reasons bears are heavier is because of there big sceleton and large bodyfat. big cats have a small sceleton and low bodyfat, there weight comes from there huge muscles. If a tiger wasn't muscular how do you think it takes down elephants? magic? Now dont come and tell me they kill by stealth, it still takes lots of power and speed to take down a 7 tonner like that. Now when you told me that a grizzly could take down an elephant as well, that was the joke of the century. 
 
And go blue, sloth bear? what are you talking about? that is a russian brown bear. Nearly twice the size of an average grizzly.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:29 PM by Mr animalia
Mr Animalia, please! The tiger in your supposed video is larger than the bear. Take off your 3d glasses and come down to earth.Let me break it down for you.There is no video proof that a siberian tiger killing a full grown grizzly.You can chatter all you want praising the so called Russsian bears are bigger than the american grizzlies when in fact id you compare what the tiger is eating or killing to a picture of an adult Ruskie brown bear its apples and oranges my friend.There is no known carnavoir with the exception of maybe a polar bear that could defeat an FULL GROWN ADULT GRIZZLY not the little cubs shown on the "Lets Kill a Bear Show" you claim. Wipe your glasses and take a deep breath and re watch your creature features.And stop using the reference "Russian Bears" are twice as big as American bears. Sounds too communist!DA!DA!
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:46 PM by Go Blue
One more thing Mr. Animalia just what the hell is "sceleton"? Cant spell and cant see.MMMMMM makes me wonder.Toby has done his research now do yours!
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:52 PM by Go Blue
Dear mr go blue, its PROVEN that brown bears make up 5-8% of tigers diet. But they dont hunt and kill bears over 1000 lb, now my point is that grizzly bears very rarly get 1000 lb. 
 
Now i'll give you a list of carnavoirs that could beat a grizzly: 
 
Siberian tiger, MAYBE lion,polar bear, kodiak bear, bengal tiger, russian bear, rhino, elephant, hippo, LARGE jaguar and even a group of hyenas or wolves
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:08 PM by Mr animalia
Go blue, one more thing: there is no doubt that you are toby ross under a different name trying to make us think that someone else here supports the bear. 
 
And before you type anything, LOOK AT THE POLL RESULTS 67% vs 33%
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:16 PM by Mr animalia
Mr. Animalia, I am not denying that tigers dont eat the small bear happy meals.Please expain to all our readers how a rhino and an elephant is a carnavoir. Let me give you a list of carnavoirs that would kill a Full Grown Male Siberian Tiger: A Full Grown Grizzly,Any Kodiak and a Polar Bear
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:24 PM by Go Blue
Mr. Animalia, I am not Toby Ross.Let me repeat my self I am not Toby Ross.Are you Chr!$T? or Daniel? Why am I supposed to look at the polls and be convinced. It is just a popular vote with speculation and very little foresight.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:34 PM by Go Blue
Listen you ignorant son of a female dog named Animilia! First of all, I never said or even hinted that bears hunt elephants. That is strictly your fairy tail about those cats you worship. And, I am not Go Blue! 
 
You can find me at: Toby Ross or Og-Lee at myspace. 
 
Go Blue has done his homework and also has that rare thing called common sense.  
 
Anyone with an ounce of good sense knows that a bear has heavier bones to hold a heavier muscle mass. A grizzly bear is at least 5 times stronger that a mere tiger. 
 
Do your homework Animilia.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:50 PM by Toby Ross
first of all, go blue and toby ross. If you call the bears that the tiger killed small, that also means that you call grizzly bear small. those bears that the tiger killed are 600-1000 lb, thats as big if not bigger then a grizzly bears. bears are a part of the tigers diet, dont you just get it? now dont com and say those bears are small. 800 lb is big, bigger then 80% of the bear species today. Now you still havent replied on all the records that daniel has?  
 
So if a bear is 5 times stronger then a tiger and a tiger can take down an elephant you are telling me that 1 grizzly would beat 5 elepants? a grizzly would run from one elephant. 
 
seiously, I even saw a video of a FEMALE COUGAR scaring away a large grizzly to protect her cubs, go on youtube and type: Mother cougar vs grizzly bear
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 3:25 PM by Mr animalia
I'll put this short and simple for you bear fans to understand 
 
Tiger kills female russian bears. 
 
female russian beer is as big as a male grizzly bear. grizzly bear vs tiger will have the same outcome as female russian bear vs tiger: THE TIGER WILL ALWAYS WIN 
 
and what about all of daniels records, you havent replied on them jet? still busy making up something?
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 3:46 PM by Mr animalia
bla bla bla bla bla TABBY bla bla bla bla bla bla TIGGER bla bla bla bla bla THEY'RE GRRRREAT bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla And regardless of all of your talk talk talk, a grizzly can so easily kill a tiger in a face-to-face fight. Tigers only kill by ambush.  
 
 
 
Grizzly bears are not jumpers and they are not ambush predators. A grizzy goes face-to-face with his aversary. Show us a video of a tiger killing an elephant.  
 
But, even if he can, what the HELL does this have to do with this face-off. NO AMBUSH ALLOWED HERE. 
 
Oh yeah, tigers never fight like that.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 3:48 PM by Toby Ross
toby ross, I am more then happy to show you a video about what you asked for. 
 
go to youtube and type TIGER VS BEAR,LION,CROCODILE AND ELEPHANT.you'll see a tiger killing and elephant. now ones you watch this you will understand that the tiger is the most fearless predetor. 
 
 
 
and did you watch mother "cougar vs grizzly bear" jet? youre big bad grizzly got powned by a female cougar.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:18 PM by mr animalia
How do you reply to Daniel's records when he finshes his argument with "rats ass" or "shits bears" That certainly didnt come from the Nat Geo Field guid for Dummies.Maybe it did! Yes it did under the chapter Ultimate Fiction.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:27 PM by Go Blue
Mr Animalia please spell check before you send us literates any more information on "tigurs pouned bares"
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:54 PM by Go Blue
man a tiger would win u see how big the tigers k9s is
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:58 PM by jordan
Go Blue those records are real not just some stories made up by a tiger fan  
 
unless of course you are saying the Author of the book lied 
 
and why my sentences include the words shit and bears  
 
is because tigers ,kill ,eat and shit out bears every time 
 
you want to know how they found out about the numerous amount of bears that were brutally killed 
 
they followed the tiger's 'scat' in other words the tiger's shit 
 
and to say tigers kill bear only smaller that them self is just showing how ignorant you are 
 
the same male tiger which was under 500 pounds that they were tracking by using his scat(shit) was a bear killer 
 
he ate bears all year round 
 
he even attacked bears up to twice his size 
 
If you ask me i think this tiger was evil because there was no shortage of a tiger's normal plain item there was plenty of deer and wild boars to go around but yet when they finally caught up with they were following a trail of 8 separate bear kills 
 
7 of which said to be killed with little effort but the 8th one showed signs of a vicious fight and the tiger still won 
 
you can call it a story of a fairytale all you want but i showed actual evidence 
 
and to say tigers are scared of bears when the bears flee from the tiger TRACKS and not the tiger itself shows just how stupid some of you really are  
 
bears run form tigers tracks lol 
 
 
 
and still no reply 
 
i wonder y? 
 
tiger kills bears everytime 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:26 PM by Daniel
The claim that a grizzly bear is five times stronger than a tiger as yet to be proven 
 
Can you show me facts Toby just as I showed you my records? 
 
as much as i hate to back track to that show animal planet used to bring 
 
Name: Most Extreme they did an episode once on the top 10 strongest animals and in the show the animals are given ranks 
 
the lower the rank of the animal the more extreme it is compared to a human the Brown bear was ranked 10th place while the gorilla was given a rank of 8th and the tiger was said to be the 4th strongest animal in the count down 
 
i know its not data and i doubt they did any actual research but if animal planet said so how wrong can they be? 
 
 
 
tiger kill, eats and shits out bear every time 
 
and when tigers fight they fight on there hunches and use both there paws much like a bear would 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:47 PM by Daniel
I'm just curious but can anyone here give me the actual weight range of each animal? 
 
And give the specific year these animals were measured and maybe the age group of these aniamls measured. 
 
Siberian tiger ? 
 
Grizzly bear ? 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:59 PM by Zeroman
Well Daniel tigers fight in two/three different styles. 
 
From what I have seen in tigers vs. tigers fights and even some tigers vs. lions fight some do in fact stand up like bears and swipe with there paws but others fight low to the ground much like a dog and even roll on their backs to get a better grip of their adversaries. 
 
 
 
I believe it is the individual animal that determines how a tiger would decide to fight. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:05 PM by Zeroman
The tiger must stalk his quarry very quietly. He must get really close, before he springs onto the animal. This is because, like all cats, a tiger tires easily. 
 
The tiger holds onto the victim desperately with very sharp retractible claws. The tiger grips the animals throat and strangles his victim to death. This might take 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or even longer. 
 
The tiger's killing weapon is his jaws. Never-the-less, a grizzly has much stronger jaws. The bear's killing weapon is basically his brute strength. A grizzly hits the animal with a single swipe of one paw, and shatters bone. I have read accounts, from a variety of sources, about how a grizzly can break the neck of a bison or a bull with just one hit. 
 
If a tiger was even close in strength to a grizzly, he would not spend such a long time in killing a herbivore.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:20 AM by Toby Ross
For all of you crybabies who keep hollering, "wrong bear, Kodiak, Asian brown, coastal bear, bla bla bla bla bla bla". If a grizzly will breed with a polar bear, don't you think that it is only reasonable that any/all brown bears breed with each other regularly?  
 
 
 
So, stop crying about what species of brown bear we are talking about. We don't care what kind of tiger you toss into the fray.  
 
It really doesn't matter. The bear is going to kill the tiger with a single hit anyway.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:30 AM by Toby Ross
Yeah yeah what ever it dont matter what type of brown bear either tiger still kills, eats and shits out bear everytime 
 
lions can even kill bears lol
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:28 AM by Daniel
Daniel says shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit and must have a mouth full. 
 
That is the sign of someone who knows that he is wrong and cannot think of anything intelligent to say. 
 
A sign of immaturity.  
 
So Daniel...why does a tiger kill by slow strangulation? Why is he unable to make a quick kill like a grizzly?
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:39 AM by Toby Ross
Wow toby you are taking this fight way to seriously  
 
but just as you say my mouth is full of shit i won't really comment on that for it is just showing how immature you really are. 
 
how did they find out tigers eta bears by finding bear remines in it 
 
can you understand why i use shit because you seem to have no idea of what scat is 
 
you want a description of the fight go and check the lion kills bear record or the tiger kills bear record 
 
both of which were made to fight in a cage so no ambush could take place 
 
but seriously you are taking this animal fight way too seriously 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:18 AM by Daniel
In other words, you cannot explain why the tiger must kill by strangulation.  
 
As for pit fights, I will not support such a thing by visiting those sites. The people who conduct such fights should be tossed in with both animals.  
 
*tigers hunt and kill tigers. Usually females, cubs, or juveniles. This is always an ambush attack. 
 
A grown male brown bear will trail a tiger, just to take way it's dinner. In a face-off, it is the tiger who backs down.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:38 AM by Toby Ross
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3872615?cookieSet=1 
 
Zeroman here are the sizes of adult male/female grizzlies and the year in which they were weighted. 
 
 
 
Toby you not going to those site will just never let you know what’s on them 
 
y should I reproduce something that is already said 
 
and once again observers you collared and weight brown bears all noticed that male brown bears will avoid male tigers and seek out the female tigers or the younger tigers to steal from and these are real observations. 
 
BTW bears that come across tiger's track have said to turn around and change their direction  
 
this as even been observed in large male adult bears fleeing from tiger track 
 
can you explain to me why a large male adult bear would flee from the tiger's track? 
 
the bear was healthy and the fact that he is large gives away that he was bigger than the average brown bear but he still fled from the tracks and not the tiger itself 
 
since you know so much then you can give an explanation right? 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:50 AM by Daniel
I liked the example you gave me a few days ago,toby. but now I use it against you 
 
Average leopard vs average man 
 
eve though an average man is heavier ans stronger, the leopard will still rip the man's head of and will easily win, why? because big cats are made to kill animals bigger and strong then themself. I mean, look at a tigers diet; most of its prey is bigger and strong: brown bear, Buffalo, Rhino, elephant... and even crocodile. 
 
I dont care if the bear is 3 times as strong (even though its surely not).the tiger will still kill it.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:02 AM by Mr animalia
If the main mode of killing for a tiger is strangulation explain just how a tiger can open its jaws wide enough to strangle a grizzly.I dont see it happening.Most of the so called scat,shit is from smaller bears not a full grown male griz.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:19 AM by Go Blue
So go blue are you saying that a bear twice the size of a tiger is not fully grown or even just a really large bear?
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:28 AM by Daneil
My question still remains unanswered. Why must a tiger resort to killing by stealth, ambush, and slow strangulation? 
 
Why can a tiger not just slap a deer or a cow in the head and break it's neck? 
 
Hmmmm...could it be that a tiger lacks the muscle?
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:36 AM by Toby Ross
Daneil,I did not state anything out of context.What dont you understand about my statement?I know you wil return with a tiger that was twice as small as a full grown grizzly, killed it and ate it and scat all over. Am I right?
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:54 AM by Go Blue
But Go blue records are there to say it as not happen when it as is like saying 9/11 was just a nightmare 
 
not only did they find the tiger's scat but they came across 8 separate bear kills made by the same tiger 
 
a tigress even killed a mother bear in a face to face encounter, in the presence of the tigress the mother bear stayed in her den with her two cubs  
 
A tiger as to ambush it prey because no animal will ever be stupid enough to stand still and let a tiger come up to and slap it. 
 
And what do you mean a tiger lacks the muscle about 50% of a tiger’s entire body mass is muscle but a bears muscle mass can range from 40-55% 
 
And if you did not notice both animals are built very different from each other 
 
have you seen animal face of a single blow form a tiger can cripple a 200-400 pound deer. 
 
and tigers also ambush because all of its prey items including bears can out run them 
 
and no aniaml would just stand up and not try to defend itself in the presence of a bear 
 
Toby you make it seem that the moose killed by the bear was justing sitting there and not doing anything 
 
I'm pretty sure that anyone could have figured that out 
 
now about the bears fleeing form the tiger's track lol  
 
or why male bears prefer to steal from the young tigers or female tigers and avoid the males? 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:10 AM by Daniel
Those are good records thanks Daniel 
 
Well Toby Ross your single hit theory is lacking. 
 
Now don’t get me wrong for I do not favor the tiger over the bear nor do I favor the bear over the tiger. I’m just trying to understand how you guys view the fight.  
 
It is said that a single blow from a grizzly to the head or back of a moose (380–720 kg) or bison (410 - 1,000 kg) can kill it but it is also said that a single blow form a tiger to a gaur (1000kg-1500kg) is more than enough to cause serious damage to the animal. How true are these statements no can tell grizzlies prefer to hunt the calf of bison that the adults while tigers will usually kill animals weighting less than 200 kg. I’m not saying that a bear cannot kill a moose or a bison with one blow or that a tiger cannot injure gaur with a single blow but these cases are so rare.  
 
Reason there are by far more interaction with humans and grizzlies than you have with siberian tigers and humans 
 
Checking back at person that are killed by grizzlies you will find that no person died from a single blow no matter where the grizzly had hit its human victim. Most people die after being maul to death by the animal. 
 
In a fight with the tiger if the bear can manage to get a good strong blow at the tigers back or even his head then his chances of being victorious is very high. But this factor is actually dependant and how the tiger decides to fight. As in my previous comment tigers have two/three fighting styles a bear as two but usually relies on one. 
 
After well ‘doing my homework’ as most of you put it I am quite surprised of what is here, most of which is just someone defending his/her opinion with little or no evidence. 
 
More than 80% of a grizzly’s charges are bluff and almost very time the bear charges it turns its back to its opponent as seen in a case with a bear is trying to scare off a dog. The bear lowers his head and his ears are flat atop its head, in a way showing that the bear as no intention of wasting its energy on actually killing the dog. Another way is the bears ability to stand on it hind legs and appears to be bigger this is also another form of intimidation and it usually works but it can also be a flawed error when facing a tiger or even a lion for that matter. 
 
Now the bears fighting style is typically to stand on its hind legs and swing its paws like clubs, if the tiger chooses to fight like this also on his hind legs then he is surely died. But the bears fighting style isn’t all that secure when he stands he is reveling his underside to the tiger and if the tiger decides to fight low to the ground it can cause a great deal amount of damage to the bear, if the tiger gets hold of the stomach with its claws and jaws it can even rip the bears stomach open much like the record of the tiger choosing to attack the lion’s hide legs instead of the lion’s neck. And while the lion was immobilized the tiger proceeded to rip his stomach open.  
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:15 AM by Zeroman
Ursus Arctos vs Panthera Tigris... 
 
First of all Daniel, boar grizzly bears fear no beast. That is a fairy tale you are telling. Male brown bears take food away from male tigers.  
 
Grizzly bears range from 500 to 1000 pounds. That makes a 750 pound grizzly an averaged sized male. That is the weight of the biggest Siberian tigers. A good average for your tiger is 550 pounds.  
 
Your cat would find himself helplessly overmatched.  
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:24 AM by Toby Ross
Zeroman...when the tiger goes for the grizzly's belly, the tiger is in easy reach of those powerful arms. One good swat...like killing a fly. The tiger is dead.  
 
( i will not stoop to talking about bear shit ).
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:28 AM by Toby Ross
Wow Toby 
 
I provided real data and you are saying i made up a story LOL 
 
you give the size of bears  
 
can you tell me what year were those imaginary bears of your were measuered 
 
just i gave the year?  
 
can you give me the age group just as i had provide for you 
 
can you tell me where these bears were measruere just as how i gave you real data and evidence? 
 
i bet not 
 
real observers as seen that male bears prefer to steal form young tigers or just the females 
 
large male bears also run from tigers track 
 
i gave you the records what have you given? 
 
i made my piont with real data but you have yet to show me anything that isn't just an estimation 
 
 
 
Zeroman you are welcome and as much as i do not agree with you i like the fact of how you explained how each aniamls fight:)
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:33 AM by Daniel
still no response yet lol 
 
I wonder why lol 
 
tell me toby where did you get those size form lol
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:18 AM by Daneil
National Geo / Wikipedia / and just about every site you can find when looking for grizzly info Mr. Daniel. Just look. The size of grizzlys is no secrete. Why do you ask? 
 
Besides, a 600 pound grizzly could esily kill a 600 pound tiger.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:15 AM by Toby Ross
k Toby Nat. Geo. compares a maneless lion to a human and a tiger 
 
But Nat.Geo. was wrong for they made the tiger taller than the lion 
 
A lion is 4 ft at the shoulders 
 
while a tiger is only 3 ft  
 
how can they put the tiger as being taller than the lion when the tiger is clearly shorter 
 
If Nat.Geo. messes that up then only God knows what else they messed up 
 
And wikipedia oh give me a break 
 
any one can edit wikipedia, the only real thing that can stop anyone from writing anything at that place is lack of access to the net. 
 
If Animal Planet claims that the tiger is the 4th strongest animal amd that brown bears are only the 10 th then animal planet is also wrong. 
 
Most site just give the estimates of these animals  
 
here i will give you a link of just how wrong human estimates can be even though the site does not give any specific age group or what year the bears size was determined. 
 
BUT i will say i find this site inaccurate for it claims that siberian tigers can reach 13 ft in lt when tigers rarely pass the 11 ft mark 
 
 
 
http://www.bowhunting.net/bearhunting.net/bear2.html 
 
 
 
where in the second paragraph people originally thought black bears could be as large as 4000 pounds but just like most sites these where just very wrong esitimates 
 
 
 
if you want i can give you a description of a fight between a polar bear and a lion at the same size(600lbs) where the lion kills the polar bear BUT i will say a polar bear which is of the same size as a lion is either a sub-adult or an underfed bear and the lion was really big for most male lions only average 420 pounds(190kg) upwards to 209 kg 
 
 
 
go ahead and call it a story if you want 
 
 
 
And still you cannot give me anys ite of the bears size and the age,year and where the size of the bear was taken which i have given. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:25 PM by Daniel
Toby Ross & Go Blue 
 
if you tell me a grizzly can easy beat a tiger its size. read this: Tigers hunt on bears up to 1.7 times there size, why isn't it the other way around? all the things you 2 have been telling us here are false (tiger would run away;grizzly is at least 3 times as strong;bears are more muscle;ect...) a grizzly thats only 1.2 times as big as a tiger will EASILY get beat up, sinds the FACT that tigers hunt on brown bears 1.7 times there size. 
 
any other things you made up?
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:35 PM by Mr animal
Mr. Animal;Animalia,You make it seem like shooting fish in a barrel.I asked for video proof and all of your references and I am not the least convinced. So let me get this straight. Bears are a primary food source for tigers.Right? Drive through Griz McNuggets? I dont think so. Your proof is more of an anomolie rather than common mother nature. Hang your hat on the super freak of a tiger that killed multiple bears and scat all over Russia.Stop with the paper proof and show me and Toby video proof of a 500 lb tiger killing a 650 lb male Grizzly.Im sorry, Griz McNuggets aren't served here.Only in fairy tails and Nat Geo's rendition of the Si-Fi channel does your reality exist.I was in Alaska and heard and read of reports of a grizzly decapatating a Bull Moose with one swipe of its paw.Pretty spooky! Mr. Animal,Animalia. Scare the scat right out of your kitties.Fear the Bear!Fear the Bear!
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:31 PM by Go Blue
And once again Go Blue is right on the money. Absolutely correct. In fact, a 600 pound grizzly bear will crush the skull of the tiger as he breaks the 600 big cats neck.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:00 PM by Toby Ross
Ok, let's try for a little reality check. 
 
Siberian Tigers, on average, will weigh in between 500-600lbs. Exceptionally large cats have checked in at 700+, and there have been reports, NOT verified, of one or two reaching upwards of 800lbs. These are NOT your average sized Siberian Tigers. 
 
 
 
Grizzly Bears will weigh in, on average, between 600-700 lbs, with exceptionally large males coming in at 800lbs+, and DOCUMENTED cases of a few coming in at 1,000lbs or more. 
 
Grizzlies DO NOT climb trees. They are too heavy, same with Siberian Tigers. Grizzlies prey on a wide varaiety of animals, including Moose, Elk, Mule Deer and even Black Bears, who can and often do, climb trees to escape from Grizzlies. Grizzlies can, for a short burst, outrun a horse, when chasing down prey. Yes, they also scavenge, and will take food away from Wolves, Cougars, Wolverines and Tigers.  
 
The Polar Bear is the largest land predator known to man, followed closely by the Kodiak Brown Bear, with the Grizzly next. The Grizzley is an omnivore, it will eat almost anything it can find. The Tiger, like all cats, is a "meat only" predator.  
 
It is extremely unlikely that a healthy, full-grown male Tiger, will go head to head with a healthy, full-grown Grizzly. 
 
The Bear is just too strong, too powerfull. He's just as fast as the Tiger and no animal can match it in ferocity. 
 
The Siberian Tiger is my all-time favorite animal, there is, in my opinion, no finer predator, but the Grizzly is just too much for the Tiger to handle, going head to head.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:23 PM by jcol
JCOL did his homework. He researched. JCOL is absolutely correct. 
 
Ursus Arctos vs Panthera Tigris. The grizzly, and any bear who carries the name Ursus Arctos, will go face-to-face with any tiger of the same age, same sex, and same weight, and win.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:51 PM by Toby Ross
And let's clear something else up too, as far as Tigers "hunting" Brown Bears; Large Males usually have nothing to fear from Tigers during the Summer months. Tigers have been known, however, to attack Brown Bears in thier dens during the Winter months, one can only assume while the Bear is hibernating, or close to it. Seems to me it is just smart and opportunistic of the Tiger, to catch the Bear at that time. 
 
It is a safe bet that of the figures being thrown around, 5-9% of "Bears making up the Tiger's diet", a good percentage of that is of Bears who simply cannot fight back. 
 
As to how the animals fight, Tigers do indeed have sveral different ways to fight, but there is some misconception about how the Grizzly fights. Grizzly's do stand on thier hind legs at times, but this is mostly just "jousting", a test of strength between the males, or posturing, trying to show the other Bear how "big" he is. When two Grizzly's DO fight, it's a terrible sight to behold. They come straight at you with some of the biggest and strongest canines and claws in the animal kingdom, backed up by 750lbs of muscle and rage. If anyone thinks the Grizzly is just "fluffy fat", they really have no clue as to just how powerful the bear really is. I don't know from whatever the Animal planet says about the strength of a given animal, perhaps they mean the "relative" strength of said animal, in which case, insects would take the crown.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:19 PM by jcol
toby ross, go blue and jcol watch this and then comment, and specially toby who was trying to tell us here that tigers arent that strong!  
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck7c2K-I44E&annotation_id=annotation_278544&feature=iv  
 
one blow of a tiger can knock out the biggest brown bears, its force is over 3 tons !
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:57 PM by Mr animalia
A quick aside to Mr. Animalia, or whatever your name is; 
 
A polar Bear will, on occasion, kill an adult walrus. It doesn't happen often. The Walrus can weigh in at over 4,000lbs and are infamous for it's nasty temper. You don't want to mess with one. The Kodiak Brown Bear hunts far more than just fish, I'm guessing you know that and you're just being silly. 
 
Now, let's talk about Tigers and Elephants. 
 
Tigers do NOT hunt Elephants. They WILL try to kill a baby elephant once in awhile, and there has been a rare killing of an adult Elephant, but it IS very rare. It is just too risky for the Tiger to include Elephant in it's diet. Everything has to break just right for the Tiger to make a kill like that, and you can probably count on one hand the number of times it's happened. 
 
It has no bearing, however, in our match-up between the Cat and the Grizzly.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:00 PM by jcol
I have no doubt of the strength of the Tiger, but I think we're talking relative to size here. 
 
Pound for pound, the Tiger may indeed be stronger. 
 
The problem for the cat is that the Grizzley will have, on average, between a 150-200lb weight advantage. 
 
 
 
The old saying is that a "good big man" always beats a "good little man". 
 
Well, almost always anyway.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:05 PM by jcol
jcol, the polar bear somethimes kills a walrus on land. but thats becaus they are relativly clumsy. in the water the polar bear would stand 0% chance. And tigers kill crocodiles on land. so that is a draw because both croc and walrus are very powerfull water animals, but clumsy on land. besides, we are talking about grizzly bears, NOT polar bears. 
 
and indeed pound for pound a tiger is stronger then a bear, toby is to dumb to understand that. BUT a grizzly does not have 200 lb advantage. 
 
Siberian tiger: 420-680 lb + 11 ft long 
 
Grizzly bear : 500-750 + 8 ft tall 
 
somethimes a grizzly may reach 1000 lb, but some tigers have also been recorded at 900 lb who reach 13 ft. 
 
the bear has barely or non weight adventage and pound for pound a tiger is stronger, and faster and, better fighter.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:23 PM by Mr animalia
Mr. animalia, I think if you'll take the average weight of both animals, you'll find that the Grizzly will probably be, on average, around 150-200lbs heavier. 
 
The Bear is stronger, while the cat may be just a tad quicker, but I have no idea how you can say the Tiger is a better fighter. Both are solitary animals, thus, they avoid confrontations when possible, but there is this to consider; Grizzly's are a sub-species of the Brown Bear, and big male Brown bears will chase Tigers off of thier kills more often than Tigers chase Bears. 
 
The fact is, where predators are involved, size and/or numbers are what counts. Predators give way to larger predators, or will succumb to superior numbers. This has nothing to do with prey, both animals take down prey bigger than themselves, but when it comes to other predators, the biggest and/or strongest will usually win.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:43 PM by jcol
I watched your video. Impressive. Regardless of this face-off, I am impressed by tigers. Between the grizzly and the tiger, the big cat is the superior hunter.  
 
However, I disagree with both of you about the tiger being pound for pound he stronger animal. The tiger is in some respects the better athlete. He is a jumper. The bear forfeitted this ability for brute strength. The grizzly is compact and built for two things, brute strength and endurance.  
 
A professional athlete is never as strong, pound for pound, as a weight lifter. A 600 pound grizzly is stronger than a 600 pound tiger. Add this to the fact that on average, the grizzly is the bigger animal.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 4:32 AM by Toby Ross
Have you ever known a pole vaulter, a broad jumper, or the champion of the 100 yard dash to compete in weight lifting or wrestling in the Olympics?
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 5:16 AM by Toby Ross
If by chance, both the grizzly and the tiger stand on their hind feet and were to end up hugging each other with all of their strength, the tiger would do no damage to the bear. The grizzly would probably crush the ribcage of the tiger, or at least crack some ribs, as the big cat is being suffocated.  
 
 
 
The grizzly bear is far stronger than any big cat that has ever lived.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:52 AM by Toby Ross
Look, tigers hunt on bears up to 1000 lb and can knock out bears that are 1700 lb with a single blow. Now if youre gonna put the largest grizzly (1496 lb) vs an average tiger (550 lb), obviously the bear will win. But a 850 lb tiger vs 1000 lb grizzly will be an easy victory for the tiger, considering an average 550 lb tiger can kill brown bears up to 900 lb. And pound for pound a tiger is stronger then any bear. 
 
and you still havent repied on 'mother cougar vs grizzly bear' on youtube? still busy finding an excuse why a bear ran from a cougar even though he was 4 times her size.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:11 AM by Mr animalia
Unlike people, animals do not have an ego problem. If an animal is injured, it cannot simply walk into the emergency room for treatment. There are times, with all animals, when they back down from another animal that they know they can kill. If the grizzly were really hungry or really angry, it would have so easily killed the cougar.  
 
I have also watched a you tube where a tiger runs from a much smaller sloth bear. But, I never mentioned these things because they mean nothing. 
 
You know that you are big enough and strong enough to kill a rat. When was the last time you grabbed one?
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:19 AM by Toby Ross
American black bears have been known to rip the door right off of a car. I have never heard of a lion or a tiger doing that. A grizzly is much stronger than a black bear. 
 
You avoided my questions. The tiger is an athlete built for speed and jumping. The grizzly is a weight lifter. Seems pretty obvious who is the stonger of the 2.  
 
A 600 pound grizzly could defeat a 600 pound tiger every time, in a face to face encounter.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:28 AM by Toby Ross
Leaving out the sea creatures and those of watery places, I would place our top players in this order: 
 
#1- Brown bears ( Ursus Arctos ). 
 
#2- tiger. 
 
#3- lion. 
 
#4- gorilla / American black bear. 
 
$5- jaguar.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:39 AM by Toby Ross
Grizzly bears turn over boulders and fallen trees that a tiger would likely be unable to budge. A grizzly bear can dig in hard frozen ground. I don't know if you have any idea how hard that is. A man cannot dig in ground like that with just a shovel. You need a pick-axe to break the groung. It takes incredible muscle power to do that. I am certain that a tiger would be incapable.  
 
There is a difference in being a stong athlete and having brute force.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:55 AM by Toby Ross
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38q2fDtDDvM
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 8:06 AM by Toby Ross
Mr. Animalia If you were to put your perfect battle together with the the largest tiger known to the real world vs the largest grizzly know to the real world which this debate spawned from, all of advantages would go to the grizzly. The Siberian tiger is very intellegant,very quick and has the first strike capability,however the grizzly has the stamina and brute force that would surrender the tiger after a few minutes. The tigers fur is not tough.It is soft This would easily be torn by the grizzly's claws,not that the cat would do harm to the grizzly but the toughness would be on the side of the grizzly.Stamina is also on the side of the grizzly.Cats in general tire easily and a Siberin tiger would be taxed of all of its energy from a confrontation with a large grizzly with in 3 minutes. A siberin tiger could not snap a grizzly's neck due to the mass size.Is only choice is to get to the under belly of the bear.For that to happen it would have to be under the bear.Once it has elected to do such it would be pinned to the ground and shredded like cheese. So in a perfect world your best tiger would loose to the best Grizzly.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 8:35 AM by Go Blue
According to "Bear Hunter's Magazine", the adult male grizzly bears of Montana average 600 pounds. These are not coastal grizzlys. These are the small ones. Every bear shot by the cowardly egotistical hunters is weighed, so this is not guess work.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:08 PM by Toby Ross
Mr. animalia, where do you get that Tigers "hunt" Brown Bears of up to 1,000lbs? This goes against conventional wisdom in the animal kingdom. Predators do not usually hunt other predators, and certainly not predators larger than themselves. If anything, it's the other way around. And where in the world do you get that a single blow from a tiger would knock a 1700lb Bear out? Where do you get this stuff? Give me some links, I'd like to check this out, because in all candor, it just doesn't ring true. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying it goes against everything I've ever heard or seen. 
 
I looked at the video between the Bear and the mother Cougar, and anybody could see that the Bear was just looking for an easy meal. He made NO aggressive move toward the Cougar, didn't even try to strike back. This video is from Marty Stouffer (check that spelling) who has been known to "set-up" altercations between animals, some real, some fake. Some of the animals he's used, are trained and have been in captivety since birth. I take this video with a grain of salt. If this was anything other than a mother Cougar protecting it's cubs, the Cougar would have been long gone.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 2:52 PM by jcol
A grizzly has very sharp claws 8 to 9 inches long. These claws are strong enough to dig into frozen ground where a man cannot dig a hole with a shovel. These claws are also capable of disemboweling a tiger. 
 
The claws of a tiger are designed to hold onto a prey animal while the tiger gets a srangle hold with it's jaws.  
 
All of your you tube shows are just that...shows. No real evidence of anything. Stories told by so-called witnesses, who also tell stories about Sasquatch and Yeti, also mean nothing here.  
 
When you look at the facts, it becomes clear that a grizzly is from 3 to 5 times more powerful than a tiger.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 5:59 PM by Toby Ross
toby ross, I'll tell you what you posted on this page so far: 
 
1.A grizzly's claws can be 8-9 inch long 
 
2.how can a tiger take down a grizzly twice its size 
 
3.a grizzly is at least 5 times as strong as a tiger 
 
4.tigers lack on muscle 
 
5.a tiger would go and hide in a tree if it saw a grizzly 
 
6.if grizzly's and elephants would live in the same terretory you would hear of grizzly's killing elepahnts. 
 
 
 
Now, this is reality: 
 
1.a grizzly's claws can grow 3-4 inch long. 
 
2.a grizzly is 1.2 times as big as a siberian tiger. 
 
3.a grizzly is 1.1-1.4 times as strong as a tiger 
 
4.tigers are jacked with steel muscle 
 
5.other way around, Bengal tigers scare the living crap out of black bears, a siberian tiger could do the same to a grizzly. 
 
6.. tigers hunt on elephants that are not to big (3-5 ton). if a grizzly saw one of those it would run away 
 
 
 
toby ross, you, go blue and jcol. youre all 3 probably bear fans but I want you to realize the harsh truth. this is no contest, the tigers wins 8-9 out of 10. Replace the grizzly by a kodiak or polar and it could go either way.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:17 PM by Mr animalia
these are the top land predetors, the no. 1 is a draw: 
 
 
 
1. Polar bear/Siberian tiger 
 
2. Kodiak bear 
 
3. bengal tiger 
 
4. african lion 
 
5. grizzly bear 
 
6. Jaguar 
 
7. Black bear 
 
8. leopard 
 
9. cougar 
 
10. Hyena
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:25 PM by Mr animalia
Animalia, youy are now putting wordss in my mouth. I never said: 
 
tigers lack in muscle. I said that tigers are far less muscular than a grizzly. 
 
I never said that a tiger will hide in a tree if it saw a grizzly. But, a tiger will not attack a full grown male grizzly. 
 
I never said that a grizzly would attack an elephant. In fact, I said that grizzly bears cannot kill elehants. They do not have "clinging claws" and bears are not jumpers. 
 
And, I said that a grizzly is from 3 to 5 times as strong as a tiger. Yes, I believe this to be true.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:31 PM by Toby Ross
What this list is differ from my previous is that I split brown bears into 2 categories: grizzly and kodiak, with the kodiak being much higher rated. I also changed my mind about Bengal tiger/African lion. I also included the polar bear, after i saw it killing a walrus I was impressed and I think polar bear/siberian tiger is a draw. No. 2&3 and 5&6 are very close to a draw.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:33 PM by Mr animalia
A grizzly is actually the more agressive of the bears you mentioned. In the rare cases when polar bears come into contact with grizzly bears, it is the polar bear who flees. Not because the polar bear is weaker, but because the grizzly is territorial and very agressive. 
 
A 600 pound grizzly will kill the 600 pound tiger every time.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:35 PM by Toby Ross
Do your homework Animalia. Yes, a grizzly bear has 8 to 9 inche claws. Now tell us, do you believe that a tiger can dig a hole in frozen ground?
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:38 PM by Toby Ross
Please like i asked where are your records of the bears size my question as yet to be answered and  
 
i ask again do you want a discription of a 600 pound lion killing a 600 pound polar bear 
 
and fear the bear please  
 
you have evidence of big male brown beras fleeing from tigers tracks lol 
 
tiger wins every time 
 
 
 
bears runing from tiger's tracks 
 
i can only imagine when he see's the real tiger lol 
 
you want evidence i can show you 
 
 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm  
 
read it if you dare lol
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:43 PM by Daniel
Whether or not you answer i give the description anyway 
 
this is a documented fight of a 600 pound male lion killing a polar bear of equal size 
 
 
 
call this a story also if you want but it did happen 
 
 
 
 
 
Fierce Struggle between a Nubian Lion and a Polar Bear, In Which The Former Won. A furious right to a finish between a  
 
 
 
fierce Nubian lion and a monster Polar bear took at -Mundy's An-  
 
 
 
.ritual Show, in. Jacksonville. Fla. The  
 
 
 
bear -was badly beaten. 'but everybody  
 
 
 
admitted. that he had made a  
 
 
 
splendid fight. "Both beasts were absolutely  
 
 
 
game all the way through.  
 
 
 
The lion carried on the fight under  
 
 
 
considerable difficulties, as toward the  
 
 
 
close the keepers were shooting him  
 
 
 
and jabbing him with redhot irons  
 
 
 
The bear owed his defeat to his weakness*  
 
 
 
in offensive tactics. In. strength,  
 
 
 
weight and endurance he was fully  
 
 
 
equal to his opponent.  
 
 
 
.The fight naturally divided itself  
 
 
 
Into rounds, ' although, of course, no  
 
 
 
time rule was observed. After a fierce  
 
 
 
bout the monsters would rest for a few  
 
 
 
moments and then go at It again. The  
 
 
 
fight lasted ten rounds.  
 
 
 
The Polar bear had angered the lion  
 
 
 
in some way. possibly by his color or  
 
 
 
his cold and reserved manner. The  
 
 
 
keepers were first aware of the. trouble  
 
 
 
when the lion smashed, the partition  
 
 
 
of iron bars that separated him from  
 
 
 
the bear.  
 
 
 
The lion is a magnificent beast, 6  
 
 
 
years old which Is the prime of life In  
 
 
 
his family. He has a very thick mane  
 
 
 
and a horrid roar. When- he roars he  
 
 
 
turns up his nose and his upper lip  
 
 
 
and displays two rows of glistening  
 
 
 
fangs. Ho weighs 600 pounds. The  
 
 
 
name Roosevelt was given him because  
 
 
 
he was so fierce and handsome. The  
 
 
 
Polar bear is an equally fine specimen  
 
 
 
of his family. Ho tramps around  
 
 
 
his cage all day in a restless manner,  
 
 
 
but rarely utters a sound. He weighs  
 
 
 
600 pounds. Ho Is called Peary, in honor  
 
 
 
of the Arctic explorer.  
 
 
 
Roosevelt started the fighting by  
 
 
 
landing with the -left part- on. Bruin's  
 
 
 
right shoulder. Owing to the enormously  
 
 
 
thick fur on the bear the blow  
 
 
 
did l i t t l e damage, although the fur  
 
 
 
flew. Peary showed a desire to get to  
 
 
 
close quarters. Roosevelt preferred to  
 
 
 
use his agile feet, delivering quick, vicious  
 
 
 
'blows and hopping aside; with  
 
 
 
lightning Quickness. the first round  
 
 
 
was principally open fighting of this  
 
 
 
kind. Peary losing much fur.  
 
 
 
In the second round Roosevelt landed  
 
 
 
heavily on Peary's nose-, knocking  
 
 
 
off a considerable portion of It. Peary  
 
 
 
seemed groggy, and Roosevelt seized  
 
 
 
the opportunity to throw in a dozen  
 
 
 
blows. Peary, however, had  
 
 
 
plenty of stamina. -He backed up  
 
 
 
against the bars and rose on his: hind  
 
 
 
legs. When Roosevelt leaped at his  
 
 
 
throat ho caught the lion a fearful  
 
 
 
on the side of his head, knocking him  
 
 
 
to the floor with a great thud  
 
 
 
both then needed a rest.  
 
 
 
In the third round Roosevelt went at  
 
 
 
once for Peary's Injured nose. The  
 
 
 
latter, however, dodged cleverly. While  
 
 
 
Roosevelt 'was rushing past Peary the  
 
 
 
l a t t e r squeezed him against the bars  
 
 
 
and began clawing,' and chewing at his  
 
 
 
relatively uncovered hind quarters.  
 
 
 
Roosevelt was unable to hit back effectively  
 
 
 
but finally succeeded In  
 
 
 
dragging himself away, uttering fearful  
 
 
 
howls and roars as he did so.  
 
 
 
Roosevelt opened the fourth round  
 
 
 
In a sensational' manner by leaping  
 
 
 
high into the air and landing- on  
 
 
 
Peary's back. This worried the rather  
 
 
 
Slow bear, and Roosevelt was left at  
 
 
 
liberty to dig into his back for some  
 
 
 
seconds. By a terrific effort Peary threw  
 
 
 
Roosevelt sideways off his back, so  
 
 
 
t h a t the lion- landed on the floor with  
 
 
 
a great crush.  
 
 
 
The -proprietor of the show and all  
 
 
 
the keepers were now around the cage  
 
 
 
doing what they could to separate the  
 
 
 
fighters. The owner realized, that every  
 
 
 
time the lion landed on the bear  
 
 
 
he knocked $50 worth, of value off him,  
 
 
 
not to speak of the possibility that  
 
 
 
both might be killed. Ac first the keepers  
 
 
 
tried long- poles and iron rods on  
 
 
 
the raging beasts, hut both were utterly  
 
 
 
disregarded. They smashed the  
 
 
 
poles like matches und knocked the  
 
 
 
iron rods back so that the men holding  
 
 
 
them were Injured.  
 
 
 
In the fifth round the lion appeared  
 
 
 
A little groggy as the result of his furious  
 
 
 
and breathless fighting. He panted  
 
 
 
heavily and trembled as he hit out  
 
 
 
at Peary. The latter pressed his opponent  
 
 
 
steadily. He tore large patches  
 
 
 
of skin from his body and seemed very  
 
 
 
nearly victor. .Suddenly the lion roused  
 
 
 
himself and gave the bear a fearful  
 
 
 
blow on his already much damaged  
 
 
 
nose. Peary stepped back. That was  
 
 
 
the signal 'for a brief return, to their  
 
 
 
corners  
 
 
 
The lion, began hostilities in the  
 
 
 
sixth* round by fixing his teeth In  
 
 
 
Peary's left hind leg. The bear tried to  
 
 
 
shake him off but the Lion held on like;  
 
 
 
death.  
 
 
 
Ono of the keepers here- intervened  
 
 
 
by jabbing a red hot iron against the  
 
 
 
lion's muzzle. A fearful stench of  
 
 
 
burning flesh and hair filled the air.  
 
 
 
The lion was at last compelled to let  
 
 
 
go of the bear. he jumped back snarl-  
 
 
 
ing horribly at the human intruder.  
 
 
 
The bear seized the opportunity to  
 
 
 
throw himself on the lion and bury his  
 
 
 
teeth in the latter's back. The keeper  
 
 
 
then turned the Iron on the bear and  
 
 
 
the fight was- stopped fop a few moments,  
 
 
 
"  
 
 
 
Roosevelt quickly recovered from the  
 
 
 
weakness he had shown and began the  
 
 
 
seventh round -with a great rush. He  
 
 
 
tore Peary's coat until be was nothing  
 
 
 
but a shapeless mass of bloody tattered  
 
 
 
fur. "The unfortunate- bear tried  
 
 
 
to hug the lion. thinking no doubt,  
 
 
 
that would stop his Jabs, but the. lion  
 
 
 
did not care for this method of fighting.  
 
 
 
Peary rose up on his hind legs  
 
 
 
and Roosevelt dealt him a right paw  
 
 
 
smash that tore most of the fur off his  
 
 
 
chest. " -  
 
 
 
The two fighters danced around and  
 
 
 
rolled 'over one another so rapidly  
 
 
 
that the keepers were unable for the  
 
 
 
time to make any attempt to separate  
 
 
 
them.  
 
 
 
The ninth round began -with both  
 
 
 
fighters groggy, but still 1n the ring-  
 
 
 
The lion, had had his right paw bitten  
 
 
 
through. His mane was nearly all torn  
 
 
 
away. His back and hind quarters  
 
 
 
, were badly damaged. His left leg was  
 
 
 
nearly useless. He could not see out of  
 
 
 
his right eye  
 
 
 
The bear was much more badly off  
 
 
 
There was not a space on him as large as  
 
 
 
A man's hand that was not torn and  
 
 
 
Bloody His head was in such a  
 
 
 
deplorable condition that his nose and  
 
 
 
eyes were unrecognizable. All his paws  
 
 
 
were bitten through. His back was  
 
 
 
literally ploughed by the lion's claws.  
 
 
 
still, they kept on fighting. They  
 
 
 
growled, roared. shrieked, moaned and  
 
 
 
splattered as they did so.  
 
 
 
The bear now accomplished what he  
 
 
 
had been trying all along to do. He got  
 
 
 
a fair grip. But this move proved after  
 
 
 
all to be Peary's ruin The bear hugged  
 
 
 
the lion until the by-standers could  
 
 
 
hear the feline lighter's bones creak  
 
 
 
and groan. The lion- gasped almost  
 
 
 
breathless, but still he managed to get  
 
 
 
teeth into the under side of the  
 
 
 
bear's .throat, one of the most vulnerable  
 
 
 
parts of his body.  
 
 
 
In the death embrace the tenth  
 
 
 
round was fought out. The bear kept  
 
 
 
on squeezing the lion kept on. gripping  
 
 
 
with his teeth. The throat grip was  
 
 
 
more than the bear could stand. slowly  
 
 
 
he relaxed his grip an-d sank on his  
 
 
 
Back beaten and half dead.  
 
 
 
The lion stood over him snarling as  
 
 
 
if he meant to eat him. At this moment  
 
 
 
a courageous Keeper stepped up  
 
 
 
and smote Roosevelt between the eyes  
 
 
 
with-an iron bar. He then seemed to  
 
 
 
think he had had enough and dragged  
 
 
 
himself back to his cage quietly, where  
 
 
 
he was "barred In.  
 
 
 
The circus men secured the animals  
 
 
 
with ropes, and four veterinary surgeons  
 
 
 
set to work on their  
 
 
 
wounds. They bound them up with  
 
 
 
antiseptic dressings wherever they  
 
 
 
could and in other places used largo  
 
 
 
strips of plaster.  
 
 
 
The lion will probably recover, but  
 
 
 
The condition of the bear is desperate.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:51 PM by Daniel
And tigers can kill bears twice there size 
 
like i have said many times the tiger that had aquire a taste for bear was found with 8 separate bear kills and may i repeat EIGHT separate bear kills all of which were brown bears one of the 8 was twice the size of the tiger which was under 500 pounds 
 
i have posted the records more than once to say i made it up is like saying a panda bear is not black and white 
 
 
 
and there are scienticficproof just as how a tiger hunting a male bear is rare it is also rare for a male bear to stel from a male tiger 
 
just like the tigers who prefer to hunt the females and young brown bears male brown bears will prefer to steal from females and younger tigers 
 
 
 
and i ask where are the grizzly bear's size and the year,age and place where these animals were measured 
 
i showed mine but i have tey to get it back from anyone 
 
and just for the record i will show it again 
 
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3872615?cookieSet=1 
 
 
 
i have answer all your question but yet non of you can tell me why a large male brown bear will run from a tiger's track 
 
 
 
and i have shown the records what have you guys shown exactly? 
 
 
 
nothing but opinions that as no data to back them up 
 
i gave my opinion but i also have real data 
 
so why can't we make this fair 
 
data fo data huh?
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 8:12 PM by Daniel
Daniel, Nubian lions are extinct in the wild. You are talking about pampered zoo animals.  
 
Also, all of these fabricated stories and staged you tube fights are meaningless and not evidence of anything.  
 
A 600 pound grizzly will kill a 600 pound tiger every time.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 8:26 PM by Toby Ross
Alright, I was evidently wrong about the bear claws. One site states 8 to 9 inches. A few sites say 3 to 4 inches. But, most sites that I found say that a male grizzly has claws from from 4 to 5.75 inches long.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 9:09 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, When I said that tigers attack and kill elephants, and grizzly bears dont, I remember you saying that if elephants and grizzly bears lived in the same terretory we would hear of grizzly's killing elephants, which is impossible. There is no doubt that pound for pound, a tiger is more muscular then any bear. you DID say that when a tiger would see a grizzly, if its smart enough it will run away. And a grizzly is 13.5 times stonger then a men, a tiger is 11.4 times strong then a men. so a grizzly is 1.18 times stronger then a tiger, I estimeted 1.1-1.4. and A grizzly's claws can be 4 inch, you do your homework and Go to blueplanetbiomes.com. find grizzly bear. 75% of a bears diet is differ kinds of plants, for the rest insects, honey, small rodents, mammals and carcasses. So why would a grizzly take the risk of fighting a tiger if it can find so much other food, the bear will be the one that will back up. 
 
You are laking on knowledge about this subject. do NOT underestimate big cats
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 9:27 PM by Mr animalia
Man, this is crazy. Daniel, that was a good try, but anybody with any sense can tell you what was going on with the Tiger that was 'eating" Brown Bears. It was Winter, the Tiger obviously had dug into the dens of the Bears, all of whom except one, were HIBERNATING. The one who put up a fight was probably not yet in full hibernation mode, and why there was evidence of a fight. Do you seriously think that none of the other bears would have put up a fight if this wasn't the case? use a little common sense, please. 
 
So what you have here, is a Tiger who was smart enough to realize that if you catch Bears Hibernating, they're a lot easier to kill. That's ONE Tiger. Do you have ANY proof of other Tigers actually hunting Brown Bears? 
 
ANY proof at all?  
 
As for the Lion and the Polar Bear, you are talking about a very large Lion, against a pretty small polar Bear. That's IF it actually happened. 
 
Where do you get that Brown Bears run at the sight of Tiger tracks? Where did you read that? 
 
And finally, to Mr. animalia, one more time; TIGERS DO NOT HUNT ELEPHANTS! the fact that a Tiger has actually killed an Elephant is indeed impressive, but they don't hunt them. They are too big, too strong, and there are a lot more easier prey for the Tiger to go after.
Posted @ Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:07 PM by jcol
Ya know, sometimes it's not what someone says, it's what they DON'T say that makes all the difference. 
 
Daniel, I do beleive you're trying to pull a fast one on us. I think I found where you got the info that sometimes Brown Bears will turn away from Tiger tracks. That has indeed been observed. 
 
 
 
Now would you like to tell the REST of the story? 
 
I'll give you the option of doing so, in the interest of fair play. If you refuse to do so, I'll ask you to supply me with the exact link to where you got that info, just to make sure you're not holding back any info that you weren't aware of. 
 
If however, it turns out that we got our info from the same site, and you still refuse to reveal ALL the facts, I'm gonna rip ya a new one. 
 
Your choice, choose wisely.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 1:39 AM by jcol
No Animalia. I never said that bears kill elephants. You are delirious.  
 
Yes, a grizzly's claw can be from 4 inches to 5.75 inches. ( read from more than a single source ).
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 4:43 AM by Toby Ross
I highly doubt that a tiger ever attacked and killed a full grown bull elephant. But, on the remote chance that it did, you are talking about the more ferocious Bengal tiger. 
 
Now, all of you tiger worshippers are forever yelling, "Wrong bear! Wrong Bear!" So, why don't you stick with SIBERIAN tigers?  
 
 
 
And besides ( hee hee ) an American grizzly could kill the tiger who killed the elephant anyway.  
 
Next...show us a reliable video of a tiger killing a bull elephant.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 4:56 AM by Toby Ross
To start with, for the sake of argument, the term "grizzly" is often used my naturalists and other professionals as a term for ANY member of Ursus Arctos.  
 
Mister Animalia asks...why would a grizzly fight a tiger when he can eat roots and grubs? 
 
 
 
If a grizzly smells a freshly killed animal, and a grizzly's sense of smell is far superior to a tiger's, the grizzly will go for it. The grizzly will walk straight toward the tiger with his kill without hesitation. This is simply what a grizzly bear does. The grizzly will take the kill. The tiger will back down.  
 
Grizzly bears have been doing this for tens of thousands of years. They take food from predators who are better hunters. The grizzly is the T-rex of the modern world.  
 
If, as only happens in extremely rare cases, the 600 pound tiger attempts to fight the 600 pound grizzly, then the bear will kill the tiger.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 6:29 AM by Toby Ross
I am certain that a 600 pound grizzly is stronger than a 600 pound tiger. But, if their muscle power could be put to the test, I would wager that a 600 pound American black bear is stronger than a 600 pound tiger. This would be a close contest.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 7:58 AM by Toby Ross
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html  
 
Tigers have low density bones and muscles developed to be elastic. 
 
Grizzly bears have high density heavy bones and muscles developed for raw strength.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 8:19 AM by Toby Ross
Here is a list of all of the land animals that a grizzly bear cannot kill. 
 
#1- elephant. 
 
#2- rhinoceras. 
 
#3- hippopotomus.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 9:13 AM by Toby Ross
Black bear vs tiger close consest. 
 
OMG, what and idiot 
 
bengal tigers beat the living crap out of black bears, a siberian tiger would do the same to a grizzly bear. Pound for pound, a tiger is more muscular then any bear. 850 lb tiger would destroy a 1000 lb grizzly easily. Polar bear vs Siberian tiger would be a close contest. the bear taller, heavier and stronger and the tiger longer, faster and better fighter 
 
these land animals will kill a grizzly : 
 
siberian tiger 
 
Bengal tiger 
 
Lion 
 
elephant 
 
rhino 
 
Hippo 
 
Polar bear 
 
Kodiak bear 
 
Russian bear 
 
Even a large jaguar. 
 
And here is the video of tiger scaring away an elephant, if a grizzly was there instead it would run away from the elephant: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-wfzlJMXLztA/tiger_vs_bull_elephant_bull_elephant_is_scared_of_tiger_and_runs_tiger_owns_all/
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 4:35 PM by Mr animalia
Pound for pound, a grizzly bear is 3 to 5 times stronger than any tiger. A grizzly has stronger bone density and muscles designed for brute strength rather than elastic ( rubber bands ).  
 
The only animals on your list that could kill a grizzly are the elephant, rhino, and hippo. 
 
 
 
A grizzly bear could have lion for breakfast and tiger for lunch without breaking a sweat. 
 
A 600 pound grizzly can easily kill a 600 pound ( and much weaker ) tiger.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 5:10 PM by Toby Ross
Mr. animalia, A large Jaguar would kill a Grizzly? 
 
Really? 
 
See, now you're acting like a fool. 
 
We can argue about Siberian Tigers, but let's get real; A 250lb jaguar, And that's larger than average, wouldn't be much more than a snack for a 800lb grizzly. 
 
 
 
You're getting a little crazy with this.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 5:12 PM by jcol
I recently watched a program which showed the bite-force of various animals being measured. They were surprized at how weak the bite force is on lions and tigers. Since they merely strangle their prey, there is no need for bone-crushing force. For both the grizzly and the gorilla, their bite is even stronger than that of a wolf and just short of the bite-force of a hyena.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 5:14 PM by Toby Ross
Mr. Animalia. Please show us a reliable video of a tiger killing an Indian rhinoceras. 
 
And again I ask, why do you get upset when you are thinking that we are refering to a Kodiak or some other brown bear? 
 
Are Siberian tigers killing elephants and rhinos in the snow?  
 
We should be just as free to include any Ursus arctos, since you seem to be free to include any Panthera tigris.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 5:25 PM by Toby Ross
A 600 pound grizzly can kill a 600 pound tiger.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 5:26 PM by Toby Ross
When you figure that there are very few people in such a huge expanse of frozen land in Siberia, then it becomes clear that probably less than one in a thousand tiger attacks on bears are witnessed, including even the discovery of remains.  
 
I would make a sensible guess that far less than 50% of such attacks are successful. I doubt that a healthy full grown male grizzly ( brown bear for you whiners ) is ever attacked at all. I cannot believe that a tiger would be that stupid.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 6:02 PM by Toby Ross
I just did a little reading. You are right Amimalia. A tiger will sometimes attack and kill an Indian rhinoceras.  
 
Of course, they only go after unguarded calves. Stands to reason, this would hold true with elephants too. So this has me thinking that I am right that tigers only hunt female and juvenile grizzly bears.
Posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 6:44 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, for the last Time! these results where taken by National Geographic: Siberian tiger 11.4x stronger then a men; Grizzly bear 13.5 times stronger then a men; so a grizzly is 1.18 times stronger, no more. you believe that a grizzly is 3-5 times as strong as a tiger is what makes you the biggest fool on this site 
 
And a grizzly would also lose from the king. lions are faster and packed with solid muscle, thats what makes them 10x as strong as a men. a grizzly may be 1.35 times as strong. But the lion having more experience and being much faster will beat the grizzly. 
 
Now a jaguars ussually are 200-260 lb, but some are that 350 lb will kill a 750 lb grizzly. Jaguars are the most powerfull cats,and very aggresive in nature. there have been records of jaguars killing caimans and even anacondas! I have asked this question on allexperts and they said that a large jaguar can kill a grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 5:50 AM by Mr animalia
TOBY ROSS, a tiger hunts female russian bears, that is correct. Now, a female russian bear gets 500-700 lb. that is as big as a Grizzly bear. so if a tiger hunts and kills russian bears, it could do the same to a male grizzly. 
 
AND ALSO bengal tigers and black bears have had many conflicts before, and the bengel tiger always beats the living crap out of black bears, a siberian tiger could do the same to a grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 6:02 AM by Mr animalia
Mr,Animalia has cat fever. You did not read the site I posted did you. Grizzly bears have denser bones than cats and bears in general have more solid muscles than cats.  
 
The black bears that tigers hunt are smaller than American black bears. Tigers probably just go after females and juveniles with them too.  
 
I watched an episode of Wild Kingdom once. This goes back a few years! There was a jaguar drinking from a small pond. Guess who shows up. A Mexican grizzly ( obviously one of the last ). The jaguar saw the grizzly slowly ambling down towards the water. The big cat turned tail and ran.  
 
*Cat muscle has evolved to be elastic where as bear muscle is solid for brute strength.  
 
*Check out the site that I have posted twice.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 6:18 AM by Toby Ross
Campared to athletes in the Olympics 
 
The tiger ( Panthera tigris ) is a high jumper, a broad jumper, a gymnast, a sprinter. 
 
The grizzly ( Ursus arctos ) is a weight lifter and a wrestler.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 7:16 AM by Toby Ross
For those of you who did not do your homework, there is only one species of brown bear. Ursus arctos. Within this species are various sub-species. The same holds true for Panthera tigris. So, why do all of you with cat fever keep crying about Kodiaks and coastal grizzly bears?  
 
You don't hear us bear people complaining when you talk about your Bengal tigers killing (giggle) elephants. This is basically Ursus arctos vs Panthera tigris. 
 
A 600 pound grizzly will maul and mangle your 600 pound tiger.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 10:19 AM by Toby Ross
While Panthera tigris is by far the better hunter of the two, Ursus arctos is the apex predator everywhere he lives.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 12:21 PM by Toby Ross
Toby  
 
you really seem to be lacking on knowledge about cats, cheetah's muscle are evolved to be elastic but a tigers are there for pure power. a cheetah is like a sprinter, a cougar like a distance jumper and a tiger is like a wrestler, it has the skill, power and speed to take down his opponents far larger: bulls, buffalos and even rhinos. you underestemare big cat, you think they are simple push overs? 
 
tiger beats grizzly 8 out of 10
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 12:45 PM by Mr animalia
http://www.laiurweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html 
 
ALL cats muscles are evolved to be elastic. IF the tiger had muscles designed for brute strength, he could not jump as he does.  
 
I am not here to insult your tigers. I admire them. IF not for Ursus arctos, the tiger would be the apex predator.  
 
 
 
Against a full-sized rhino, a grizzly would stand a better chance than a tiger. But, if I were to place a bet, it would be on the rhino.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 1:14 PM by Toby Ross
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 1:16 PM by Toby Ros
Mr. animalia, your claim that Brown bears make up 5-8% of a Tiger's diet is false. The statement was that Asian Black Bears and ursula Brown Bears make up 5-8% of the Tiger's Diet, with the Brown Bear making up 1-1.50% of that.  
 
Daniel, you keep saying that Brown Bears run from Tiger Tracks, and yes that has been observed, but the article you got that from, goes on to say that Brown Bears are just as likely to follow the tracks, in hopes of finding the Tiger with captured prey, and taking that kill away from the Tiger, which it usually does if such an encounter occurs. 
 
If you guys, and anybody else for that matter (myself included), are gonna throw out statements like that, please have the guts to place ALL of it out for everyone to see, and not cherry pick facts to support your argument. It is dishonest to do otherwise. 
 
Now, it is true that if the Tiger's natural food source dries up, they will indeed be forced to hunt Bear. Tigers are carnivores. They only eat meat. They are also ambush hunters, and that's the safest way to go about hunting Bear. The killing bite has to be done quickly though, because Tigers rarely make a living by hunting Brown Bears. By contrast, Brown Bears rarely hunt Tigers. They don't need to. Bears are omnivores. They'll eat meat, berries, plants, grubs, fish, almost anything leading up to preparing for the winter months. Like all predators, they'll go after the easiest prey they can find, going after dangerous prey only when forced to. 
 
So what does all this mean? 
 
Tigers will Hunt Brown Bears as a last resort, and so far as anybody know, only with the ambush technique. 
 
Tigers will usually back down in a face-to-face confrontation with a Brown Bear over food. 
 
Typically, a large Grizzly's weight will increase the closer it gets to winter and hibernation. It can easily exceed 800+ lbs, depending on it's frame size. During this time, they are ravenous, and nothing is safe when they are in the area. They will Kill and eat almost everything they can catch and/or take away from another predator, and nothing short of a very brave, or hungry, pack of Wolves can do anything about it. 
 
A tiger that grows beyond 600lbs is exceptional, not typical. 
 
Mr. animalia, I'd like to know who these experts are that you talked to that say a large Jaguar could kill a Grizzly. Could you list them for me, please? 
 
Look, I have a great affection for Siberian Tigers, I think they are the most majestic of all Predators. 
 
But the average Siberian Tiger has little chance against the average Grizzly in a head-to-head battle. 
 
Just my opinion, but given the size, weight and strength advantage the Grizzly has, I don't see how anybody could think differently. The Tiger's best bet would be to take on the Grizzly just after Hibernation, when the Bear is at it's smallest, hungry but weaker from weight depletion.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 2:19 PM by jcol
jcol, an expert on allexperts.com stated that if a jaguar would fight a black bear it would win, but it would lose from a grizzly. BUT if a large 350 lb jaguar met a an average 600 lb grizzly the cat would win because they are so aggresive in nature and superb fighters, jaguars kill caimans and even anacondas! now the size of a grizzly youre stating is wrong. this is the correct size and diet comparesion: 
 
Siberian tiger 420-680 lb but may reach over 850 lb in rare cases. they manly hunt on buffalo, bull and other cows, also deer but even female and young brown bears are a part of there diet.  
 
grizzly bear 500-750 but may reach 1000 lb in rare cases. 75% of there diet is vegie but somethimes eats berries, insects and mammals. 
 
NOW tigers hunt on female russian brown bears, females reach beyond 700 lb. that is as much as a large male grizzly! so its clear that a siberian tiger can easily kill a bear up to 900 lb. jcol, toby and go blue all underestimate big cats. 
 
 
 
and toby ross,  
 
youre kidding right? 
 
a tiger stands a much better chance against a rhino then a grizzly. I posted a video of a BENGAL tiger scaring away an elephant, so if a tiger is so much weaker then a grizzly how come elephants fear them? if a grizzly roared to an elephant it would just make the 5 tonner mad and will probably get killed. the bear may be 1.18x stronger and 1.2 times but the tiger is faster, better fighter and more experienced 
 
 
 
tiger kills grizzly every time, polar bear vs siberian tiger could go either way.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:01 PM by Mr animalia
What Mr.Animalia fails to understand is, a wild animal does not have an ego problem. When an animal is injured, there is noone there to wrap the wound or set a broken bone.  
 
IF a grizzly, an elephant, or a rhino runs, it is not because it fears the tiger. It is because there is no good reason to fight. There are no heros or cowards among animals. 
 
A grizzly bear would easily kill a jaguar. An American black bear would stand a 50-50 chance against a jaguar. 
 
Tiger vs three and a half tons of rhinoceras is just funny. A grizzly would stand a better chance. And of course...a 600 pound grizzly could kill a 600 pound tiger.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:38 PM by Toby Ross
Did you know, Mr.Animalia, that when a polar bear enters grizzly country, it is the polar bear who runs? A grizzly will chase a polar bear out of it's domain. Grizzly bears are territorial. This does not mean that polar bears fear grizzly bears. It is simply that there is no good reason for the polar bear to risk injury. 
 
 
 
Tigers do not hunt elephants or rhinos. A tiger will hunt female brown bears and/or cubs when the tiger has no other choices avaiable. Then, against a female grizzly, it has to be a well formulated ambush, if the tiger wishes to survive.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:47 PM by Toby Ross
Toby,  
 
tigers hunt on female russian bears, those female russian bears are the same size as a male grizzlies, so a tiger would kill a grizzly as easily as it kills a female russian bear. National geographic ones did a documentary of wildlife in siberia and in conflicts between brown bears and tigers the bears are the ones who back up, a tiger will steel the prey of a russian bear. a grizzly is smaller and weaker then a russian bear so it will just make it easier for the tiger. 
 
and bengal tigers do hunt elephants up to 5 tons and rhinos up to 2.5 tons go learn something. 
 
 
 
rhino vs tiger chances are 70-30 
 
rhino vs grizzly chances are 90-10  
 
how could a grizzly stand a better chance? tigers are faster, better fighter, more experienced and they know what it takes to kill prey much bigger then themself. 
 
obviously an 850 lb tiger will easily kill a 1000 lb grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 4:07 PM by Mr animalia
I went to that site, Mr. animalia, and they had more "experts" who say the Black Bear would win over the Jaguar. I never found the "expert" who says a very large, and very rare jaguar would take a grizzly twice it's size. Every other "expert" on the site picked the Grizzly over the Jaguar, regardless of size. I could find no one who picked the Jaguar. 
 
Not one.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 4:22 PM by jcol
Mr. animalia, Tigers DO NOT HUNT MATURE ELEPHANTS! They just don't do it. They may go after the young once in a great while, but they DON'T HUNT the adults. 
 
And, full grown male Brown Bears, take food away from Tigers more often than Tigers will take from Bears. Tigers avoid confrontation with the big male bears. 
 
No matter how many time you say different will make it so.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 4:30 PM by jcol
FACTS about a grizzly / tiger of equal size: 
 
The grizzly is stronger. 
 
The grizzly has denser bones. 
 
The grizzly is smarter. 
 
The grizzly has greater endurance. 
 
The grizzly has a stronger bite.  
 
The tiger is slightly quicker.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 5:20 PM by Toby Ross
Jcol i showed you records already 
 
 
 
"In January 1941, I encountered the prints of a very large brown bear near the mouth of the Ta-Kunzha River, a tributary of the Kema River; this animal, which had accidentally come across a tiger family on the trail, abandoned this path at a gallop.š At another site, he came across the track of a male tiger and also turned away from the tiger's track." 
 
 
 
thats telling me that brown bears fear tigers i don't know what it says to you guys though 
 
 
 
and grizzlies can climb trees i have no idea where you are get that from? 
 
 
 
http://www.yellowstoneparknet.com/nature_wildlife/bears.php 
 
 
 
http://animal.discovery.com/videos/stranger-among-bears-grizzly-climbs-to-50-feet.html 
 
 
 
and this link i found here 
 
http://www.loukashkin.org/Tigers/index.htm 
 
 
 
i don't feel like repeating so i'll tell you to go and look at what I said the first time I mentioned the lion vs polar bear fight and yes it did happen 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
there is even a record of 140 kg tigress fighting and killing a 170 kg brown bear  
 
a fight could not have happen if the bear was asleep because then that would be hunting 
 
 
 
a lion/tiger fighting any brown bear of equal size or larger will them 100/100 
 
 
 
and that tiger that killed the 8 brown bears hunted brown bears all year round the article says the tiger only ate brown bears  
 
all his scat had brown bear in them 
 
unless of course you are saying bears hibernate all year round? lol
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 5:41 PM by Daniel
tigers hunt female broen bears and cubs. The tiger must calculate his ambush precisely to overpower the female grizzly. It is highly likely that not every ambush on a female brown bear is successful. Face-to-face, even this female brown bear is more than a tiger can handle.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 6:07 PM by Toby Ross
Daniel, what you just posted shows the actions of ONE Brown Bear, and this person didn't see what actually happened. He saw tracks of two different animals, he gives no time-table as to when these sets of tracks may have occured. 
 
In most cases you have presented, the Bears were either female or undersized.  
 
 
 
You state a record of a 140kg Tigress fighting a 170kg Brown Bear, but tell us the Bear couldn't have been sleeping. Well, did you read the report or not? What did the report say? Did it give any details aside from the outcome? If so, how can you know ANYTHING about the how it started? 
 
You've said nothing about how Brown Bears will just as often follow the tracks of Tigers and take thier kills away from them.  
 
The average Tiger will weigh up to 550lbs. A 650lb Tiger is exceptional, but not the norm, and and a tiger over 700 is rare. 
 
The average Grizzly will run close to 650lbs, and the closer you get to Winter, the bigger they get. 
 
A big male Siberian Tiger, will not take on a big male Grizzly. 
 
This is why they let the Bear take over thier kills.  
 
Fighting the Grizzly is not a good idea, and they know it.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 6:59 PM by jcol
C'mon daniel. In one of the liks you provided, it shows a female Grizzly which climbed 50ft up a tree after her cub. Even the guy watching her said that was amazing, as most Grizzlies can rarely climb more than 25 ft, if that. Another link said that Black bears can climb trees because thier claws are curved. Grizzly Cubs can climb trees along with some young adults, because they haven't grown heavy enough yet. 
 
The last link simply told of a story of a Tiger coming across the lair of a Grizzly and after chasing it out, fighting with it, it finally escapes up a tree. 
 
It said NOTHING about how big the Grizzly was, but it couldn't have been too big as it had no trouble getting up the tree. 
 
There were no details.  
 
Daniel, so far, none of the links you've posted have done very much to bolster your argument. 
 
You need to find better links, son.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 7:46 PM by jcol
Daniel  
 
Polar bears are highly prone to overheating, in any case that lion vs polar bear, the bear could have just overheated more quickly than usual because it is not in its natural environment and stop fighting making him defenseless to stop the lion. 
 
That is why the polar bear’s diet usually consist of seals because they overheat before they can catch most other animal in its domain. 
 
 
 
A polar bear isn't used to long term battles because this will also lead to overheating so in a fight between a polar bear and a Kodiak I will say the Kodiak would win most of the time. 
 
In an Enclosed Area 
 
Now the bears fighting style is typically to stand on its hind legs and swing its paws like clubs, if the tiger chooses to fight like this also on his hind legs then he is surely died. But the bears fighting style isn’t all that secure when he stands he is reveling his underside to the tiger and if the tiger decides to fight low to the ground it can cause a great deal amount of damage to the bear, if the tiger gets hold of the stomach with its claws and jaws it can even rip the bears stomach open much like the record of the tiger choosing to attack the lion’s hide legs instead of the lion’s neck. And while the lion was immobilized the tiger proceeded to rip his stomach open.  
 
To my previous statement a tiger/big cats attacking like this will also go after the hind legs maybe with a force strong enough to cause the bear the topple over backwards/forward. What the tiger will do after that depends on the tiger. 
 
The standing issue: the average grizzly bear will stand 7ft tall and a tiger on its hind legs 7-8 ft tall given the body length is 6 or either 7 ft long. 
 
Typically a tiger would attack the face of the bear but a single hit to the tiger's rib cage will automatically cause internal damage to the tiger. How hard the animals will hit each other is again depends on the animals and single hits form the tiger to the bear’s head can rip the bear's scalp off. If the bear tries to hug the tiger then this can be a fatal move. Big cats in close quarters to anything will almost always attempt to maul its victim. The bear can risk damage to its chest and stomach having it letting go of the tiger. 
 
The strength issue: this also depends on how the animals are built a grizzly can move a boulder with the diameter of the average man’s arm span because bears are built in that way, a tiger in any case can never do that but a case of a tiger of unknown gender was able to pull a dead bull guar which 13 adult men could not even budge I’m pretty sure a bear could accomplish this task as well but how strong are the animals is unknown. Most of which is there is based upon estimations. 
 
But in the end the fight will not be easy for both competitors for even in Siberia male tigers and male brown bears are said to be a threat to each other but I’ll give the advantage to the bear for strength. 
 
Anyone else wishing to analyze the fight in an enclosed area?  
 
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 7:49 PM by Zeroman
these are FACTS about 1000 lb grizzly vs 850 lb tiger 
 
 
 
1.The tiger is much faster (48 kmh vs 80 kmh) 
 
2.tigers are much better hunter 
 
3.the grizzly is slightly stronger 
 
4.pound for pound a tiger is more muscular 
 
5.a grizzly is more of a vegie eater while tigers are real hunters 
 
6.tigers are master fighters 
 
7.a grizzly is slightly heavier 
 
8.tigers hunt brown bears up to nine hunderd lb 
 
9.grizzly has more stamina 
 
tiger : 6 advantages 
 
Grizzly : 3 advantages 
 
more then clear who'd win? 
 
 
 
Toby, in every single one of youre comments you seem to put the tiger down, are all those comment really youre thinking? or you hate big cats for some reason?
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 8:15 PM by Mr animalia
And indeed tigers do not hunt adult elephant but according to that book Death by a Thousand Claws indochinese tigers were used to fight elephants 1 on 1 and if the elephants were to survive they were seen suited for war.  
 
Thats all I know about the elephant issue but tigers that are used to the pressense of elephants do not seem to fear them
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 8:17 PM by Zeroman
even a 400 lb tigress could kill a 650 lb grizzly bear.  
 
tiger vs Grizzly = no contest, tiger wins every time (explaination is above) 
 
Tiger vs polar bear = good contest, with the bear taller, heavier and stronger while the tiger longer, faster and better fighter this is a really close call 
 
top 5 predetors in my opinion: 
 
1. tiger/polar bear 
 
2. kodiak bear 
 
3. lion 
 
4. grizzly 
 
5. jaguar
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 8:24 PM by mr animalia
Mr. animalia, you've gone beyond silly and you're now just acting foolish. 
 
I see no need to continue this debate any further. 
 
You've lost touch with reality and common sense. 
 
Have a good time in la-la land.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 9:12 PM by jcol
Jcol, you lost. you and toby are in a fantasy world. or you 2 are just bear fans, my 2 comments above are the harsh truth for any bear fan like you. tiger kills grizzly 9 out of 10 -no contest-
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 11:13 PM by Mr animalia
This is not a contest between us, animalia. It's a one-sided debate. 
 
My dear ol' pappy used to tell me to never argue with an idiot, people may not be able to tell the difference. 
 
You've gone off into goof-ball land, and you seem to be happy there, so that's where I'll leave you. If it makes you feel better to think that you won something, you just knock yourself out, slick.
Posted @ Saturday, January 09, 2010 11:24 PM by jcol
Mr.Animalia...wake up! The grizzly is MUCH stronger. The tiger is slighty faster. Being the better hunter will not help Mr.Tiger in a face-off. Pound for pound the grizzly is more muscular. Tiger muscles are elastic, not for brute strength. Grizzly bears eat their veggies ( that's a good thing ). Master fighters? Both animals know how to fight. Yes, the grizzly has more stamina. After he has killed the tiger, he will not even be tired.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 4:03 AM by Toby Ross
After some research, I can clear up a misunderstanding. The tiger can run from 35 to 40 mph and keep it up for a few seconds. The grizzly can run 35 to 40 mph and keep it up for miles!  
 
speed = equals. 
 
strength = grizzly.  
 
stamina = grizzly. 
 
The tiger is by far the better jumper. I can see no other advantage in the big cat's favor.  
 
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 4:22 AM by Toby Ross
Wild beasts do not have egos. A wild animal will not stand and fight without a really good reason. I know that I can squeeze the life out of a rat with one hand. However, because I do not wish to be bitten, I will not grab a rat. A Chinese monk once watched a crane defend her nest from a tiger. The tiger backed down from the skinny long-legged bird. 
 
Tigers do not fear cranes. If one animal refuses to fight another, it is because there is no reason to risk even the slightest injury.  
 
If a grizzly runs from a tiger, it is because he has no reason to fight on that particular day. If a tiger willingly gives up a kill to a grizzly, it is because he isn't yet hungry enough to risk injury or death.  
 
Wild beasts will fight only when there is no other options. There are no heros and no cowards among them. Sloth bears have been known to chase away tigers. Tigers are known to hunt and kill sloth bears. Neither beast will stand and fight without a reason.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 6:55 AM by Toby Ross
toby, your info is wrong. tiger has alot of favor 
 
speed: tiger 1.6x 
 
strenght: grizzly 1.18x 
 
better fighter: tiger 
 
musclular: tiger 
 
intelligence: equal  
 
stamina: grizzly 
 
tigers are real hunters. 
 
go re-seach, cats are very intelligent and grizzlies are only 1.18 times faster and tigers are more muscle less fat.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:39 AM by mr animalia
I mean grizzlies are only 1.18 times stronger.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:40 AM by mr animalia
Tigers are awesome. In Siberia the temp can drop down to -96 degrees F. 
 
If I were in Siberia without a weapon, I would fear the tiger more than I would the grizzly. Why? Because the tiger is strictly carnivorous! The grizzly might pass me by. The tiger will not, unless he is well fed. Tigers definately do more killing of herbivores. They are natural born hunters, which make them natural born killers. 
 
I have the highest respect for tigers. However, in a face to face encounter, a 600 pound grizzly will kill the 600 pound tiger every time. Raw power wins over the tiger's experiance.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:40 AM by Toby Ross
Once again for the slow learners. The tiger can run 35 to 40 mph for only a few seconds. The grizzly can run 35 to 40 mph for miles! 
 
Same speed but the bear has endurance. The tiger is NOT faster.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:44 AM by Toby Ross
Muscle mass! The grizzly has bigger heavier bones which are dencer than those of any cat. Why? To hold more muscle mass. Much more! 
 
The tiger has lighter bones for elastic muscle power. If the tiger had the brute force of a grizzly bear, he would not be a jumper. You cannot be a weight-lifter and win in a high jump or broad jump contest. It is simple science. 
 
I would estimate that a 600 pound grizzly is from 3 to 5 times as strong as a 600 pound tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:54 AM by Toby Ross
Yes, the tiger is by far the better hunter. However, in a face-off, this fact is no help to the tiger. Better fighter? Grizzly's fight other grizzly bears very often. So, as fighters, I would say equal.  
 
The tiger simply has nothing going for him to compensate for the grizzly's overpowering strength.  
 
 
 
You had asked why I believe that a grizzly would stand a better chance against a 3 and a half ton rhino? Because, if the tiger hits the rhino, the rhino will not even know that he has been hit. If the fight starts off at close quarters and the grizzly hits the rhino, the bear can stagger the rhino. The grizzly would stand perhaps a 40% chance of winning. The tiger a 0% chance. 
 
If the rhino is in full charge, neither the tiger nor the grizzly could stop him.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 11:04 AM by Toby Ross
Mr.Animalia, this is for you. 
 
The tiger can leap incredible distance and height. Here is more. The tiger has slightly longer teeth which are sharper than a bear's teeth. The tiger has eqaully as long claws which are sharper than a bear's claws. 
 
A 600 pound grizzly would annihilate a 600 pound tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:13 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, ones again! a grizzly is 1.18x stronger then a tiger. a grizzly will lose from a rhino 9 out of 10, a tiger loses from a rhino 6 out of 10. bears are not build to kill prey larger then themself. cats are made for that. 
 
Imagin 2 wrestlers faced each other: 
 
Contender no.1 : the grizzly up to 1000 lb and 8 ft tall, 50% muscle & 50% fat, okey fighter and runs at 50 kmh. 13.5x as strong as a 
 
Contender no.2 : the tiger up to 850 lb and 11 ft long, 80% muscle & 20% fat, very skilled fighter and runs at 80 kmh. 11.5x as strong as a men. 
 
clear the tiger would win in a face to face fight
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 3:22 PM by Mr animalia
In your wrestling match... 
 
The grizzly is Hoss Cartwright. 
 
The tiger is Little Joe Cartwrite.  
 
A 600 pound grizzly is far stronger than a 700 pound tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 3:39 PM by Toby Ross
elastic elastic elastic elastic! A tiger has elastic muscles, NOT brute strength. If a tiger had the brute strength of a grizzly, he would not be the fantastic jumper that he is.  
 
Perhaps a 350 pound grizzly is only 1.18 times stronger as a 700 pound tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 3:44 PM by Toby Ross
a tiger has both brutal strenght and elastic muscle! i told you a tiger is 11.5x as strong as a man and a grizzly 13.5x as strong as a man, if a tiger had only elastic muscle he wouldn't be this strong. if in the olempics the cheetah would be a sprinter (75 mph), cougar would be a long jumper (40 ft), the tiger would be a wrestler (1 blow is as powerfull as 3.6 ton), a leopard would be a weight lifter (they can carry 2.5x there weight straight up in a tree), a jaguar would be body-builder (the most muscular cat of all) and the bear would be a lazy fat guy infront of his TV watching the olempics. why? because cats are far more athletic then any bear, ever heard of a guy in the olempics with bodyfat over 10%? another example: a wrestling match in one corner (grizzly) a 200 lb guy with muscle-fat ratio of 50-50 and in the other corner (tiger) a 180 lb guy witha muscle-fat ratio of 80-20 and a much more skilled fighter. obviously the tiger will win. this is no fight tiger wins 9 out of 10 atleast. even a tigress would kill a grizzly
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 5:23 PM by mr animalia
BTW : Toby, if i was lost in siberia... ; grizzly bears dont live in siberia genius. that is another sign that you are lacking on knowledge about this subject.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 5:26 PM by Mr animalia
I know where grizzlys live. But, did you also know that the term "grizzly" is also used by naturalists as a term for any "Ursus arctos? Kodiaks are also called the grizzlys of Kodiak Island. 
 
This fight is about Ursus arctos vs Panthera tigis. And why do you cry every time you think someone is talking about an Ursus arctos other than an American grizzly? And, did you not know that the black grizzly lives in Siberia?  
 
Do you hear me crying when you talk about your Bengal tiger ( giggle ) hunting elephants and rhinos? No!  
 
So, this is about Ursus arctos vs Panthera tigris. A 600 pound grizzly is from 3 to 5 times stronger than a 600 pound tiger. And no, yout tiger does not have brute strength. That is scientifically impossible, as I have explained again and again and again.  
 
If a grizzly could leap upon the back of an elephant, that would mean that he lacked the brute strength of a bear. Tigers are members of the cat family. Cats ( all cats ) evolved elastic muscle so as to be quick moving, flexible, and good jumpers. Bears evolved into omnivores with brute strength, like a bull, a buffalo, or a rhino. But in the body of a carnivore.
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 6:25 PM by Toby Ross
alright all you tiger fans this is how it is, if a tiger (any tiger) cant kill a lion (which they CANT) then a tiger has no chance against a bear espacally a grizzly bear there is no compotition for the bear at all! Ok let me put it this way a 640lbs tiger vs a 1500lbs bear hhmmm those facts should say it all. The bear will win no matter what! 100 times out of 100 times! If you dont believe me know then your just a dumb ass!
Posted @ Sunday, January 10, 2010 8:22 PM by bear man
You are right Bear Man. In fact, even though the average grizzly is bigger than the average tiger, even if it were a 640 pound grizzly vs 640 pound tiger, the grizzly would still easily win. Ursus arctos has the brute strength to easily overpower the big cat. Even a female grizzly is more than a match for a tiger. Especially if she is guarding her cubs.
Posted @ Monday, January 11, 2010 6:57 AM by Toby Ross
Why Ursus arctos is the true King of Beasts is posted on myspace: Og-Lee / Toby Ross.
Posted @ Monday, January 11, 2010 10:23 AM by Toby Ross
The most powerful cat ever ( pound for pound ) was Smilodon. He was built for strength and power much more so than any living cat. Paleontologists describe this saber-toothed cat as having an almost bear-like physique. Pound for pound, Smilodon was probably almost as strong as a black bear. A grizzly, however, because of being adapted to digging in hard frozen ground, would be ( pound for pound ) much stronger than a Smilodon.
Posted @ Monday, January 11, 2010 2:22 PM by Toby Ross
Bear man, we are talking about a grizzly, NOT A KODIAK. a grizzly can get 750 lb on maximum, a tiger 675 lb on max, very rare size difference. and a bears weight commes from fat and muscle; a tigers commes from muscle only. not to talk about the fact that a tiger is faster, better fighter and more experience hunting. tiger will kill a grizzly every time. even a 400 lb tigress is more then a match for your teddy 
 
And toby, yes the smilodon was the most powerfull cat ever, but almost as strong as a black bear? a lion is stronger then a black bear, a smilodon was stronger then a polar bear. go learn something! bears have 50% muscle for power and the other 50% goes to fat. a tiger has 50% elastic muscle and 40% muscle for power and 10% fat, so pound for pound a tiger is stronger then a bear. now dont say a high jumper and sprinter cannot be a wrestler, its getting old. a tiger is clearly all 3 of them. running in at 80 kmh, a 28 ft jump and a blow as powerfull as 3.6 ton it could easily kill a grizzly any day.
Posted @ Monday, January 11, 2010 4:26 PM by Mr animalia
Siberian tigers can get 850 lb, there is no land predetor that could kill it except MAYBE a 1500 lb polar bear, polar bear and siberian tiger are the top land predetors, in a conflict this will be very unpredictable. plar bear taller, stronger and heavier. while the siberian tiger faster, longer and better fighter. 
 
this contest however, can only go one way. the grizzly stands no chance against a full grown male tiger.
Posted @ Monday, January 11, 2010 4:37 PM by mr animalia
Bear Man, you just have to overlook Mr.Animalia. He has cat fever. 
 
Mr.Animalia, show me! Give me the name of the athlete ( either Olympics or professional ) who is a broad jumper, high jumper, or gymnast who also won gold or other matals as an Olympic or profssional weight-lifter. 
 
You cannot, because it is scientifically impossible. If the tiger had the brute strength of a grizzly, it could not leap upon the back of an elephant. It is not physically possible. That is why an elephant cannot jump at all. 
 
OH!!! There you go crying again. Not Kodiak! Not Kodiak! Not Kodiak!  
 
We are talking about Ursus arctos vs Panthera tigris, ever since all of you tiger fans started talking about the exploits of the Bengal. Now, every brown bear is legal~
Posted @ Monday, January 11, 2010 4:46 PM by Toby Ross
Grizzly bears are well known for ripping stumps apart, turning over logs and boulders, and digging into frozen ground in search of food. Early on, pioneers learned that grizzly bears are not good tree climbers. However, if a man did not climb a big enough tree, the grizzly would simply push the tree over. A grizzly is a natural born weight-lifter. 
 
In the early 1800's, hunters learned that, if you were not in a tree or tree-stand high enough, the tiger would simply leap up and grab the hunter. Tigers are very agile and accomplished jumpers.  
 
Neither man nor beast can be both. If you take a look at weight-lifters Paul Anderson, Mark Henry, and Hossein Rezazadeh, you will realize that none of these champions could win a matal in a high jump or a long jump. Neither could a grizzly. And the tiger is not a weight-lifter.
Posted @ Monday, January 11, 2010 6:08 PM by Toby Ross
Only when other prey cannot be found, will a tiger resort to hunting bears. Tigers kill Asiatic black bears and grizzlys ( Ursus arctos ). Of course, tigers only go after females, cubs, and young juvenile males. As with most predators, the tiger can read his quarry. He can spot the sick, the injured, and the very old. The tiger might risk making an ambush attack on a big male grizzly that is the equivalent of an 80 year old man. But, I am sure that a tiger is intelligent enough not to ever attack a healthy male grizzly. In a face to face encounter, a 500 pound female grizzly could defeat a 500 pound tiger.  
 
I am not here to disrespect the tiger. I believe that, next to Ursus arctos, the tiger is the top preator in his domain and could take on a lion at least 6 out of 10 fights.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:00 AM by Toby Ross
Mr animalia, amur tigers, most usually, are MUCH smaller than 850 lbs, and of course, the largest specimen in scientific studies was FAR smaller than this. While i believe they can reach such weights, there is no reliable document confirming this. 
 
And, Toby Ross, not only is a 500 lb female grizzly bear exceptional, but it cannot defeat a 500 lb tiger, an animal with nearly the most fulminating form of that instantaneous outburst energy as compared with any other animal, with the exception of the lion. 
 
Likewise, grizzly bears, in general, are no larger than lions or tigers, and most certainly, the big cats are of greater aggression, with higher levels of testosterone. 
 
The big cats are also the more agile specimens. And, in one study, the lion had the largest recorded muscle mass, as compared with any other mammal in the study. 
 
A lion or tiger would defeat a grizzly bear. And also, Mr. animalia, a tiger (bengal) has been known to get up to 857 lbs in the wild.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:48 AM by damon
And Toby Ross, while bears have been known to reach top speeds of 40 mph, most usually, they average about 30 mph, and the tiger, about 35 - 40 mph. The tiger is usually faster, though yes, it would seem the bear has much greater endurance.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:50 AM by damon
Mr.Animalia / Mr.Damon...as I stated before. Cats evolved elastic muscles for quickness, flexibility, and spring-like muscles for jumping. 
 
Bears evolved heavier denser bones to hold heavy muscle for brute strength. A 600 pound Ursus arctos is far stronger that any 600 pound cat.  
 
As I asked, show me a long-jumper and/or high-jumper who is also a weight-lifter. You cannot have it both ways. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:48 AM by Toby Ross
As for running speed, Grizzly, tiger, lion are all about equal. Yes, a grizzly is usually running about 30 mph... and can keep this pace for miles. 
 
There is a difference between fast and quick. Example: a cheetah is faster than a leopard. A leopard is quicker than a cheetah.  
 
In a face-off, the tiger is the quicker fighter, but the brute strength of Ursus Arctos will prevail. I believe that a tiger could usually win in a lion / tiger fight. But, that is not ( to me ) worth an argument.  
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:55 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, here`s where your mistake lies: Lions and tigers have enormously dense bones, and one study indicates the bones of the lion is as dense as those of the brown bear. 
 
The bones of the lion is immensely dense. And no, a 600 lb grizzly is not stronger than a 600 lb lion or tiger. That`s bull. Strength is based upon percentage of muscle, muscle cross section, which in turn is related to the size of the animal, as well as the percentage of muscle fibers used in any given movement.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:15 PM by damon
And also, the tiger is slightly faster than both the grizzly and the lion. 
 
Likewise, the tiger would most likely lose, in a fight with a lion.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:16 PM by damon
SHOW ME. 
 
Show me an Olympic high jumper / long jumper who also won medals in the heavyweight weight lifting event.  
 
You cannot, because it is scientifically impossible to have both flexible spring-like muscles and pure brute strength. If a lion or a tiger had the brute strength of a grizzly, the big cat would not be able to accomplish such incredible jumps.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:29 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, you obviously understand very little about muscles. No animal has more elastic muscles than any other. Lions are more agile, and can jump higher, because they have tendons which are only loosely connected to the bones, by the muscles. 
 
This facilitates greater mobility/maneuverability. Likewise, they have a very high percentage of muscle mass than most other animals of equal mass, meaning they have a greater percentage of muscle, to move a proportionately smaller mass (or mass as compared to muscle percentage). 
 
And, as for those studies?...why, here they are; 
 
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4338/bonedensity1ly8.png 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/51/t/Lions-density-of-bone.html 
 
Copy and paste the ENTIRE link into your browser, and check them out.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:31 PM by damon
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. 
 
SHOW ME. Show me a long jumper / high jumper who is also a weight lifter in the heavyweight division. 
 
As I said, it is scientifically impossible to be both.  
 
Pound for pound, Ursus arctos is the strongest living carnivore.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:55 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, i myself can be considered a weight lifter (i work out frequently) and can also jump rather high. I only weigh about 139 lbs, but my biceps are impressive. Proof?; 
 
http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu130/boldchamp/boldchamppics005.jpg 
 
http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu130/boldchamp/m_912259b9bb0f4a199e8d2a42a62299dc.jpg 
 
I just showed the images, in case you did not believe me. I can also jump nearly to my head height, which is significant. 
 
But, did you look at those studies i showed you?...or, are you going to ignore them, like last time?....
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:08 PM by damon
YES i went to those sites and...they mean nothing. The proof is in the pudding. Book learning is great. But, a little common sense goes a long way. 
 
A Grizzly spends his days turning over fallen trees and heavy boulders. He digs in concrete hard frozen ground where a lion or tiger could only scratch the surface.  
 
No, you are not a professional or Olympic weight lifter. I am not saying that the big cats are not strong. I am saying that they do not have the brute strength of a grizzly. If a tiger had the muscles of a grizzly, he could not make such incredible leaps.  
 
In the early 1800's hunters used to sit in trees, ready to shoot a tiger. Several hunters were killed, when the tiger merely jumped up and grabbed them. 
 
People have been killed by grizzlys because they climbed trees to escape the bear. A grizzly is not a good climber. But, if the tree is not big enough, the grizzly would push the tree down.  
 
Different methods. The lions and tigers are powerful athletes. Ursus arctos is a brute. A 600 pound Ursus arctos is much stronger than a 600 pound tiger.  
 
So...you can prove me wrong by showing me this "Super Athlete" who is both a jumper and a heavyweight weight-lifter.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:00 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, yes, i`m not a professional weight lifter. But, one needs not be a professional weight lifter, to be a good one. 
 
And, the tiger being able to jump high, has nothing to do with his/her not having muscles like those of the grizzly. Muscles act in the same way, no matter which animal has it. The is not a great jumper, due to his build, not bone density or muscle mass. 
 
His limbs, for instance, is proportionately shorter than both those of the lion and tiger, as well as the fact he walks upon his whole foot, instead of of his toes, like the big cats, meaning a bear would lack that extra 'spring' the cats would have, from the simple fact that they are jumping from their toes, which effectively lengthens the stride, if only but a slight amount. Likewise, the limbs of the big cats is bent, while that of the bear is almost straight, allowing, again, little in the way of spring. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:11 PM by damon
Another point. 
 
Neither the lion nor the tiger is a fighter. Both are hunters and ambush killers. 
 
A fighter ( boxer or Olympic wrestler ) must have stamina. All cats lack the endurance to be a true fighter. Ursus arctos has brute strength and endurance.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:13 PM by Toby Ross
tobby, lions and tigers not good fighters? another good joke. tigers and lions are the most skilled fighters alive . get out of youre dreamworld! tigers are 11.5x stronger then a men, a grizzly is 13.5x stronger then a men. That means a grizzly is only 1.18x stronger then a grizzly. i am comparing a 450 lb tiger with a 700 lb grizzly you know? that means pound for a tiger is more then 1.3x as strong as a grizzly. maybe in youre fantasy world bears are much stronger. just cause someone is good at jumping and running you will automaticly know that there not strong? NO! school is a good example, the ones who are good at running and jumping are usually the ones who are good in wrestling and weight lifting , because there muscles are good developped and they have strong and healthy bodies, those students are like tigers and lions. how could you possibly compare animals to athletes? a bear doesn't go work out in the gym every day because they wanto win a medal at the tournament of weight lifting. a tiger doesnt run on a treadmill daily to win the tournament of the 1000 meter run. 
 
in a fight between a 850 lb tiger vs 1000 lb grizzly, I calculated there strenght to be about equal. 
 
a tigers advantages: 
 
1-more skilled fighter 
 
2-much faster 
 
3-beter hunter 
 
4-sharper claws 
 
5-more muscular body 
 
6-cat like vission eyes. 
 
7-pound for pound stronger 
 
 
 
a grizzlies advantages: 
 
1-slightly heavier 
 
2-more endurance. 
 
 
 
clearly a tiger wins
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:43 PM by mr animalia
a 675 lb tiger will easily kill a 750 lb grizzly. even a 450 lb tigress will be to much to handle for the bear.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:47 PM by mr animalia
anouther point: pound for pound the jaguar is the strongest predetor, the ursus actros is probably the fattest land predetor. if every mammal predetor would be the same size, panthera onca would be the king.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:52 PM by mr animalia
That was all pretty funny Mr.Animalia. Lions and tigers are not fighters. They are assassins. If a 600 pound tiger very carefully stalks a 600 pound Ursus arctos ( I use this proper name so you don't start crying wrong bear ) and ambushes the brown bear from behind, he might stand a 50% chance of killing the bear.  
 
We are not talking about school boys. Look at a real weight lifter, in the professional heavyweight division. Like Paul Anderson and Mark Henry. These men are built BIG all over.  
 
You are talking about an athlete like a swimmer or a boxer. Yes, these men are strong, but they are not the brutes like the weight lifters.  
 
Could you envision Mark Henry in a long jump or high jump compitition against professionals in that field? 
 
A fighter must have stamina. The big cats do not. They must do their work quickly. In a face to face encounter with a grizzly, neither lion nor tiger would stand even a remote chance of winning.  
 
SHOW ME. 
 
Where is this Super Athlete who is quick, agile, a fantastic jumper, and can win in a heavyweight division weight lifting contest? 
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:20 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, lions and tigers are the most accomplished fighters out of all the land carnivora. Just check this vid out, of two lionesses fighting; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67eyP6zmpM 
 
Also, Mr. animalia, the two biggest cats (ions and tigers) as well as grizzlies, are of equal strength, being equal in weight, as well. 
 
Also, Toby, the big cats (specifically the lion and tiger) have the most fulminating form of that 'instantaneous' outburst of energy compared with any other animal yet studied, according to studies by george washington crile.  
 
I`ve already explained to you why the big cats are better leapers than bears, and still, you believe your bull crap.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:24 PM by damon
Realistically, I would estimate that a 600 pound grizzly is about triple the strength of a 600 pound tiger. And yes, brown bears do work out. In their daily lives, these bears are overturning logs, fallen tress, and huge bouders. They easily overturn objects that no big cat could move. Plus, no big cat could dig into hard frozen ground. That hump you see on a grizzly is pure muscle.  
 
Pound for pound, Ursus arctos is the the world's strongest carnivore. The jaguar doesn't come close.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:30 PM by Toby Ross
Im sorry damon, i know my name is lion man but all the big cats are my second fav, my first are bears espacally the brown bears. The largest wild brown bear was a kodiak found on kodiak island alaska, it weighed 2500lbs. So if you put the largest wild lion or tiger against the bear then the bear would kill them both. Just last year i was watching a grizzly bear and polar bear documentary on animal planet and the park ranger took the host to see a 1782lbs brown bear and the ranger said "He looks like he has grown a couple hundred pounds more since the last time i weighed him". Brown bears are much bigger and much stronger then any big cat of today. Even back in prehistoric times the largest cat that has ever lived, the american lin was no match for the short faced bear aka cave bear.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:10 PM by lion man
Toby Ross, a grizzly the size of a tiger would not be 3 times his strength. Not only is that not the case, for that to be true, they`d be stronger than an elephant, which is the strongest land animal. 
 
You greatly overestimate the strength of the bear, while underestimating that of the tiger/lion. Here is some insight, upon the strength of a bear, however; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38q2fDtDDvM 
 
And, i`ve seen big cats dig into the ground, though yes, they are not good at it. But, this is due to build, rather than strength. The bear has longer, more blunt claws which work much like shovels. The legs are short, and stump like, which further aids in leverage. 
 
Likewise, turning over large boulders (which lions and tigers can still do) is something the big cats are not built for. They certainly have the strength for it, however. 
 
Pound for pound, the grizzly, or indeed Any bear, is most certainly not stronger than any member of the cat family.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:35 PM by damon
To start with, I just have to say this. I am astounded! astonishished! amazed that anyone with more than a third grade education can actually believe that a lion or a tiger can possibly be as as strong as Ursus arctos! It is a rediculous statement.  
 
Sure, big cats can scratch the ground, but even if they had claws like a bear, a big cat would not have the muscle to dig into hard frozen ground. A grizzly overturns logs and boulders that neither lion nor tiger could budge.  
 
Your explanation of how cats jump don't cut it! Show me an athlete who is agile, quick, a superb jumper, and equiped for heavy weightlifting.  
 
The big cats are strong. I'm not trying to take that away. But, in a comparison with humans, your tiger is built like a boxer while the grizzly is built like the weight-lifter. George Foreman and Mike Tyson are strong, but not nearly as strong as Paul Anderson or Mark Henry. Ursus arctos is, pound for pound, easily the strongest carnivore. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:52 AM by Toby Ross
In prehistoreic times, there were cave lions in Europe and there were American lions. Both cats were slightly bigger than the Siberian tiger. In America, there was the short-faced bear ( Arctodus simus ) which was roughly 5 and a half feet tall at the shoulder. The American lion was no match for this bear. In Europe, there was the cave bear ( Ursus spelaeus ) which was roughly the size of a Kodiak bear, but even more heavily built. Pound for pound, the cave bear was probably the strongest land carnivore ever, even though he was mostly vegetarian. The cave lion wouldn't stand a chance in Hell against a cave bear. The biggest land carnivore ever was Ursus maritimus tyrannus, a prehistoric polar bear even bigger that Andrewsarcus! Bears are the apex carnivores.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:26 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, you greatly underestimate the strength of the big cats. And, what do you mean, my explanation of how big cats jump don`t cut it? 
 
For starters, you cannot compare the differences in abilities between members of the same species (humans: jumpers vs weight lifters), as you are comparing big cats vs bears. 
 
In a comparison of humans with jumpers vs professional weight lifters, yes, it would seem they have bigger muscles, a supplement to exercising. However, that is not an accurate comparison, as you are still comparing species within the same species, where one person can actually 'train' his body for a specific aspect. 
 
However, for animals in the wild, it`s different. Big cats, as do bears, are both designed for strength. The muscle mass of all these animals is rather high. 
 
A bear cannot jump as far as a big cat, simply because of his build, and not the weight of his muscles. The bear, simply put, has proportionately shorter, almost pillar-like legs, which allows almost no spring for a jump, which also requires that slight bend in the legs characteristic of all jumping animals, that effectively 'shortens' the leg before the jump, and, once straightened, allows a greater gain in distance. 
 
Bears also walk on their whole foot, rather than their toes, which further decreases jumping stride.  
 
Also, lion man, only certain populations of brown bears are larger than lions or tigers, as i have the documents which show that, at least in the case of the grizzly, and perhaps a small number of other brown bears, the size is rather equal between them. 
 
I also have records of lions killing both brown bears, and polar bears as well.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:31 AM by damon
IF a tiger had the muscle mass of a grizzly, that tiger would be too bulked out to be an agile hunter and jumper.He would also have a very prominent hump on his shoulders. His limbs would be thick with muscles. That tiger would be Arnold Shwartzo-tiger. 
 
In a real face-off, no tiger and no lion could kill a brown bear or polar bear. Stop watching all of those faked You Tube "sites for idiots".
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:23 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, the lion and tiger do indeed have as much muscle as the bear. However, the muscles of these specimens are more evenly spread out throughout various areas of the body. 
 
It just so happens that a greater proportion of the grizzly bears muscle mass, is in it`s shoulders, as compare with the big cats. 
 
I don`t rely on videos for the lion-tiger vs bear subject. I have actual studies and eyewitness accounts for that.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:52 PM by damon
So, these ( very reliable ) eye witnesses are exactly where when they see tigers hunting polar bears? Or, if I remember right, it was lions hunting and killing polar bears.  
 
Ursus arctos is, pound for pound, stronger than a polar bear. And, a grizzly has thicker stronger muscles than a tiger EVERYWHERE.  
 
It is Damon and Animalia who are delusional. YOU read all of this so-called "cannot be wrong" data from some science Utopia, and you only remember what you choose to remember. But, one thing is very clear to me... 
 
I have been reading and learning from every source available since probably before your Daddy met your Mommy. Ursus arctos is pound for pound MUCH stronger that any cat that ever lived.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:15 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, name one study you have read, which indicates the grizzly has more muscle as compared with the lion and tiger. 
 
And, the bear does not have 'thicker, stronger' muscles everywhere. The grizzly bear averages roughly 193 kg, with an average chest girth of 130.5 cm. That of lions, which averaged 193.3 kg, was 125.9 cm, but slightly different, and due to the fact the bear has a shorter form (in both height and length). A shorter body of equal mass would need to be of greater girth.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:22 PM by damon
Tigers sometimes hunt bears. This is only when easier food cannot be found. This is also much more often Asiatic black bear and sloth bear. Even with these, the tigers seeks out females and juveniles. When a tiger hunts brown bears, he definately seeks out a smaller female or a very young juvenile.  
 
I doubt very seriously that tigers ever attack a healthy fully grown boar brown bear. Not even in an ambush attack. If this has ever happened, the bear was very old or very sick. The tiger is quite capable of "reading" his quarry.  
 
I believe that, even in an ambush attack by a tiger, a healthy male Ursus arctos would kill the tiger.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:33 PM by Toby Ross
In those measurements, you were very careful to go withy the "inland grizzlies". Measure the muscles of a 600 pound brown bear, before he starts fattening up for Winter, against a 600 pound tiger.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:38 PM by Toiby Ross
*I am from the Old School. Stop talking in metric. Speak English.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:40 PM by Toby Ross
I happened to see on TV just recently, a coastal grizzly that was mounted after some Elmer Fudd had shot it. It had a 28 inche biceps. There is no way in HELL that a tiger has an equal muscle mass with a grizzly of equal size. 
 
Another point. A 600 pound tiger is a bigger animal than a 600 pound grizzly, because the bear has heavier muscles and heavier bones. It should be by body length. A tiger with seven foot body length vs grizzly with a seven foot body length. The grizzly would then outweigh the tiger because he is more heavily packed with strong bones and muscle.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:47 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, i was strictly talking of grizzly bears, in my size comparison. Though i have sources from several different areas, of grizzlies, where the figures were the same.  
 
While some populations of brown bears can and often do get larger, this is based more upon food intake, rather than actual body size. 
 
The muscles of a 600 lb bear would be proportionately lesser than those of a 430 lb bears. Simply put, the bigger bear will have more muscle, but, relative to the weight of his body, he`ll have less muscle. Muscle mass decreases in proportion to body weight, as the animal increases in mass. 
 
But, you said, that, pound for pound, the bear would still be stronger. Of course a much larger bear will have more muscle mass. Just as a tiger larger than a bear will have more muscle. However, what about at equal weights (only referring to lions-tigers and brown bears)?. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:03 PM by damon
Also, Toby, you said that bear had a 28 inch bicep?...well, here is a record of a tiger, of 440 lbs, with a 27.5 inch bicep; 
 
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/?action=view&current=tigergirthweight2.png 
 
Here is a tiger with 29 inch biceps, that weighed 508 lbs; 
 
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/?action=view&current=tigergirthweight3.png 
 
I have many more than that. So, you were saying? 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:07 PM by damon
Well, let's have a look. The record tiger has a 27.5 inche bicep. An average grizzly chosen randomly has a 28 inche bicep. Hmmmmmmmm?  
 
Is is not becoming obvious to you now?
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:14 PM by Toby Ross
That`s not a record tiger, Toby. I meant, i was merely showing you A record, or document concerning the tiger`s measurements, which were rather average. Did you see my second source, of the 508 lb tiger, with the 29 inch biceps? 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:28 PM by damon
Speaking of obvious. Do you notice that this fight reads "Siberian tiger vs grizzly bear"? These people had reason for that. They chose the biggest tiger against what might be ( according to Damon and Animalia ) the smallest brown bear. Why didn't they say Ursus arctos vs Panthera tigris? Sounds to me like they wish to give your tiger every possible advantage. And they did the same thing with the gorilla. Why no0t simply, tiger vs gorilla? Is someone a little nervous that the tiger needs to be a giant?
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:30 PM by Toby Ross
Grizzly bears, on more than one account, used to burst into log houses in the North West at the smell of food cooking. They would sometimes burst through a door or right through a wall. 
 
I cannot recall ever hearing of a tiger doing that. But then, a tiger does not have the bear's brute strength.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:39 PM by Toby Ross
I do not believe in de-clawing any animal. But, for the sake of arguement, If a de-clawed tiger, of equal size to the grizzly, slaped a grizzly upside the head, he would rattle the grizzly just enough to make the bear really angry. If the de-clawed grizzly slaped the tiger upside of his head, the tiger would likely have a crushed skull, a broken neck, or both.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:52 PM by Toby Ross
toby, tigers and lions are the most skilled fighters on the planet. bears don't hunt, or very rarly they do. all what tiger does is hunt. if a grizzly was 5x as strong as a tiger (which it is not) a grizzly would be as stronger as 3 ton rhino. a grizzly is much weaker then a rhino. a tiger is by far more muscle then a grizzly. you are overestimating bears and underestimating tigers. and stop comparing animals to athletes! like I said, they are 2 total different things animals dont work out every day at the gym 
 
the tiger is pound for pound stronger, more muscle, much faster, much better fighter, more deadly weapon and more experience hunting. 
 
the grizzly is slightly heavier and has more endurance. and then, the bears weight is not going to come in hand, tigers take down prey much bigger then a grizzly. and its endurance, well the tiger will finish the grizzly with little effort. 
 
tiger wins 9 out of 10
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:33 PM by mr animalia
and toby, when did i ever say that the grizzly was the smallest brown bear? I said kodiak and russian bears are much bigger; but i never said the grizzly was the smallest! 
 
and bengal or siberian doesn't matter, tiger will still kill the grizzly
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:39 PM by mr animalia
Ok mr animalia and damon you are saying that a lion and a tiger fight better then a grizzly bear!!! WHAT ARE YOU SAYING!!! Watch these videos of grizzly bears fighting and picture what would happen to a lion or tiger. 
 
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGwUpM9QryU 
 
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFtAEM7GkO4&feature=channel 
 
 
 
A grizzly would rip a lion or tiger apart!!
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 8:32 PM by lion man
Lion man, the bear is not a better fighter than the lion or tiger. I have actual studies concerning the fighting prowess of the lion, as well as studies indicating bears most usually avoid fights, as well as the fact that mortality of bears, due to fighting, is less than that reported for lions. 
 
Check this vid out, of lions fighting; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67eyP6zmpM 
 
The results of most fights often end in the death of one or more opponents, according to studies by packer. Here is another vid; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cMk5d0RnT4&feature=related 
 
The lion and tiger also have a greater proportion of testosterone, as compared with the grizzly bear, with indicates greater aggressive behavior. Likewise, studies by george washington Crile indicates the lion and tiger has the most fulminating form of that instantaneous outburst of energy of any animal of comparable size, including the grizzly. Note i am not talking of endurance, but that instant outburst of energy some animals get when call upon.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:09 PM by damon
You are right Mr.Animalia. And, if you will keep up, you would know that I have stated that I did over exaggerate. In truth, the grizzly is only 2 or 3 times stronger than a tiger. In a fight, if the tiger does not kill the bear within the first few seconds, the grizzly will easily win. A big cat is only good for a few seconds, then he is winded. Sure, he has that sudden burst of energy, like a person on speed. But then, the tiger is huffing and puffing, while the stronger grizzly still has hours of energy left.  
 
The tiger has only one chance to win this fight against a much more powerful opponent. The tiger must get a strong grip on the grizzly bears throat within the first few seconds of the fight. But, that isn't going to happen. Grizzly bears are fighters. Male grizzly bears spend a great deal of time fighting. Experiance will keep this from happening. The grizzly will have an easy victory over the less powerful tiger.  
 
Oh, and Damon, those figures mean absolutely nothing. You say that a grizzly is only 1.18 times as strong as a tiger. Buffalo chips! Measuring animal strength is not an exact science. The bear or tiger has no clue what is happening. How can you know when the animal is giving all it has in a strength contest? You cannot. But from all that I have read, since I started reading about 53 years ago, the grizzly is by far the stronger of the two.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:11 AM by Toby Ross
I was just reading at a site about tigers. At this paticular site, someone was asking about tiger vs brown bear. Of course, what he recieved was pretty much a slap in the face.  
 
I do not own a gun. I do not kill anything other than roaches and other creepy crawlies that infest my home. I will even catch and release such things as spiders and wasps that I can catch in my house. I do not kill snakes. I love nature and even refuse to fish. 
 
However, man has asked "who is the King of Beasts" from back in the stone age. It is a very natural curiosity. I would never agree to an actual pit fight. I give ( when possible ) to the WWF. 
 
But, we are looked upon as monsters.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 6:52 AM by Toby Ross
My way of looking at this forum is like this, IF every living thing on earth were transplanted to another earth-like planet ( by highly advanced aliens ) where there is only one great continent, who would be at the top of the food chain? 
 
North pole = polar bear. 
 
Ocean = sperm whale / Orca. 
 
From the sub-actic to the sub-tropics = Ursus arctos. 
 
Jungle = tiger. 
 
Dry arid grassland = lion.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 7:59 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, if an animal is properly motivated, he can be coaxed to use his full strength.  
 
But, i don`t think the grizzly is stronger at all. You didn`t see me say 1.18 times, or anything like that. The grizzly is not stronger, for reasons i gave before. 
 
No amount of reading will tell you the strength of the grizzly bear,especially when only but one study actually exists of the strength of the grizzly, and it is fairly recent. 
 
Lions or tigers are every bit as strong as a grizzly. Indeed, if a grizzly was 3 times stronger than a lion or tiger, it would be the strongest land animal. Even elephants, though rather strong, are not that strong. 
 
An elephant is roughly 20 times as strong as the average adult human.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:42 AM by damon
NO Damon! Measuring bite-force or animal strength is NOT a disciplined science.  
 
Tigers not only hunt big game, but will also eat small animals, such as rodents or lizards. But, you never see a tiger overturning heavy logs or boulders. A tiger lacks the muscle to dig into frozen ground. Have you ever heard of a tiger pushing down a tree to get at a person or a potential meal? Have you ever heard of a tiger bursting into a house to get at food? Have you ever heard of a tiger ripping the door off of a car? NO! Tigers do not have the brute strength of a grizzly.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:05 AM by Toby Ross
You will notice that I speak of things that can be seen on nature programs by everyone or can be found on the history channel by anyone. As for your "data". I believe that if you find 10 articles refering to a comparison of strength between Ursus arctos and Panthera tigris, and seven articles read that the bear is the strongest, and three articles read that the tiger is the stronger, you will show us the three.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:41 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, if i found a study concerning the strength comparison of the tiger and bear, i would show all. I`m not biased.  
 
But, i also do not hold much significance to studies which just says one is stronger than the other. I`d rather rely upon an actual comparison, because indeed, i believe they are rather equal in strength. 
 
And, i never said measuring bite force or strength was a disciplined science. However, you can produce good results, by testing the animal several times, rather than merely one, as well as giving him/her a high incentive to do it.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:58 AM by damon
Those who believe that the big cats rule over bears are forever bringing up the fact that tigers hunt bears. Yes they do. But, I seriously dougbt that tigers ever hunt healthy full grown male brown bears. Then, there is the fact that brown bears very rarely hunt. A grizzly will not kill another predator for food. But, if he does kill a predator for any other reason, then he will devour that predator. Other than an occasional attack on elk or carribou, grizzly bears mostly eat rodents, rabbits, and fish. Vegetation makes up the biggest majority of a brown bears diet. If brown bears were true hunters, then we would be hearing stories of bears killing tigers. The hunter always has the advantage, because the prey is taken by surprize.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:15 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, my statements that a tiger would win in a fight with a grizzly bear, has nothing to do with tigers hunting bears. I do indeed know that most cases of tigers hunting bears happened through ambush. However, the tiger, along with the lion, has the most fulminating form of that instantaneous outburst of energy of any animal of comparable size, including the bear. Likewise, they have higher levels of testosterone, and certainly are the more aggressive specimens, and likewise more agile. 
 
The lion or tiger would most certainly win.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:29 AM by damon
The tiger does indeed have some advantages. Quickness. A loud fast attack. Sharper teeth. Sharp blade-like meat hooks. But testosterone? I doubt it. Grizzly males are very aggressive towards each other. That is why males are so much bigger than females.  
 
If this fight is face-to-face, then that sudden outburst of attack will not take the grizzly by surprize. And... Ursus arctos is the stronger of the two. I have stated my reasons for knowing this. Pound for pound, the brown bear is the worlds strongest land carnivore. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:46 AM by Toby Ross
Bite Force. We constantly get conflicting reports. Most authorities say that alligators and crocodiles have the strongest bite force of any living animal. Now, others are saying that sharks have an even stronger bite. Have they also measured the bite force of the hippo, the orca, and the sperm whale? One several programs, I saw where the grizzly has a stronger bite force than even a wolf, and much stronger than that of a lion or tiger. Now, I am seeing reports that the big cats have a stronger bite that a grizzly.  
 
I believe that, in any type of measuring animal strength, you get what that animal is willing to give you at the moment. You cannot be sure that you got all that the animal can give.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:13 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, you can indeed coax an animal to use his full bite force...if he is accurately stimulated. 
 
And, you should also know that, on most programs, and in some articles, estimates of bite forces are given (which explains the confusion). However, brady barr actually measured the bite forces of many animals. Here are the results; 
 
Bite force, in lbs; 
 
Young male lion (3.7 - 4 years old approximately) 691 lbs  
 
Great white shark: 669 lbs 
 
Alligator snapping turtle: 1004 lbs 
 
Crocodile: 2500 - 5000 lbs, first measurement from a big, but tired croc, second from another. 
 
And, from another study (no estimates) 
 
The alligator has also been measured with a strong bite force; 
 
http://dogbitesinformationandstatistics.blogspot.com/2008/01/canine-bite-force.html 
 
"According to a recent study published in the Journal of Zoology of London, alligators snap their strong jaws shut with a force of 2,125 pounds, or with about as much force as a mid-size sedan falling on top of someone." 
 
And, here is more bite forces from brady barr; 
 
African wild dog: 317 lbs 
 
Pitbull: 235 lbs 
 
German shepherd: 238 lbs 
 
Rottweiler: 328 lbs 
 
Human: 127 lbs 
 
Hyacinth Mccaw: 167 lbs 
 
Monitor lizard: 55 lbs 
 
Python: 32 lbs 
 
Hyena: 1000 lbs 
 
Tasmanian devil: 395 lbs 
 
wolf: 406 lbs 
 
Female hippo: 1823 lbs 
 
Those are the bite force measurements. As can be seen, Crocs and alligators have the strongest bite force measurements.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:28 PM by damon
Also, Toby Ross, i have an actually study upon the testosterone of grizzly bears, which was but slightly over 1 ng/ml, compared to twice, or nearly twice that amount, in lions or tigers. 
 
So, i have the data to back up my claim....otherwise, i wouldn`t have said it.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:32 PM by damon
It would be interesting to know the bite strength of a bull hippo, an orca, and a sperm whale. Whalers told stories of bull sperm whales crushing boats in their jaws. Of course, sailors have a reputation of telling tall tales. Is there any reliable evidence, that you know of, about the bite force of the grizzly, tiger, lion, and jaguar? Also, on one nature program, they claimed that the gorilla has an equal bite force with the grizzly.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:24 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, i already told you the bite force of the lion, which was measured by brady barr. You have to read my posts, man. 
 
Also, frank mendel has told me, via email, that he has recently measured he bite force of a couple of tigers...however, since he plans to publish the data, he cannot yet give me any info on it. 
 
But, the jaguar`s bite force, and neither has that of the grizzly, ever been measured, only estimated at.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:45 PM by damon
I read the article. They measured the bite force of ONE young lion. You yourself said that when measuring the strength, speed, intelligence of a single individual the evidence is inconclusive. And yes, the bite force of both the grizzly and the gorilla have been measured, but maybe not by those that you view as the "Gods of Science".  
 
You keep looking at data from some lab while I am looking at the animals themselves. Leave Data in the starship Enterprize and look at the tiger and look at the grizzly. The3 grizzly bear is far stronger than the tiger.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:00 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, you never said that you cannot measure the strength, speed, ect, of just one animal. I said that you cannot merely measure the bite force only once....and indeed, the bite force of that lion was taken once. 
 
And, the grizzly is not stronger than the lion. Also, you cannot tell the strength of an animal just by looking at it. Only an actual study/comparison can determine that. And, the grizzly is not stronger than the tiger. 
 
And no, the bite force of the gorilla and grizzly was not measured. The only sources i`ve seen so far on these specimens, has been estimates.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:18 PM by damon
I believe that, to get a more accurate measurement, the bite force of 10 or 12 young healthy lions should be measured. Then take an average. Do the same with tigers. With grizzlys, first consider the size differances, and take an average. Then, take the bite force of 10 or 12 bears all of average size. Then take an average.  
 
What if aliens took just one human to measure strength, intelligence, etc. They might have Danny Devito or they might have Lou Ferrigno. That would be inconclusive evidence.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:38 PM by Toby Ross
I look at lions and tigers and I look at Ursus arctos. I look at what the big cats can do, and I look at what the big bears can do. My conclusion is: The grizzly is from 2 to 3 times stronger than a lion or a tiger.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:42 PM by Toby Ross
toby ross, you cant just gues an animals strenght, go do some research and you will find that tigers are stronger then grizzies. a 700 lb grizzly is 1.18x as strong as a 450 lb tiger. and experts CAN calculate the power of an animal, scannimg them, calculate there body mass, muscle %, fat % ect...and they will get a very close result. that means that pound for pound a tiger is 1.3x as strong. the tiger is by far the better fighter and more skilled hunter,more deadly weapons, pound for pound more stronger, superb jumper, and much faster. IF the grizzly has the guts to fight the tiger he will RIP. the grizzly is smart, so it would not defend its prey and run away. like you said animals are about suviver not ego and "im the strongest".
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:53 PM by mr animalia
Mr.Animalia...you make me laugh.  
 
You copy data from Damon's secrete Fortress of Solitude, believing that anything he says is ABSOLUTE TRUTH because he tells you it is.  
 
Ursus arctos is from 2 to 3 times stronger than any big cat livig and at least double the strength of any prehistoric cat.  
 
Cats are flexible, agile, and quick. A BEAR is STRENGTH and POWER.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 6:23 PM by Toby Ross
The tiger will lose because after just a few seconds of fighting, the big cat is winded. The grizzly will walk away bleeding from the cat's claws. But, his wounds will quicly. So, the big brown bear ambles away from the broken body of the tiger.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 6:29 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross....you cannot really judge the strength of these animals based on what you believe they can, or cannot do. Even a moderately strong human can turn over a fairly big boulder, and most certainly any big cat can do it. 
 
But, bears can do some things that cats can`t, not due to greater strength, but build.  
 
I`ve seen a lion bend, with apparent ease, a solid metal rode holding a dummy in place. I`ve also seen a tiger take a dummy of 60 lbs, and handle it as if it were a rag doll.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:05 PM by damon
Also, Toby, mr. animalia did not copy anything from me. Generally, and i will always support this view, regardless of the crap you spew, the lion-tiger and grizzly bear, are of equal strength. 
 
Cats are flexible and agile because they have bodies built for just that.....but, you can be strong and flexible too. If you don`t understand how this works, i`ll be happy to explain it. But, i assure you....you are wrong. 
 
A grizzly is not stronger than a lion or tiger, and most certainly not 3 times stronger, as it would then be stronger than an elephant, the strongest land animal.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:09 PM by damon
toby ross, i agree with you 100%. In ancient times in the colosium, they had animal fights. They had fights between several animals including the lion, tiger, brown bear etc. When they had the lion or tiger fight the bear, the bear would mostly always win 7-9 times out of 10. The only time when the lion or tiger won is when the bear was sick or old or just to young to have the fighting experience. But when they matched them up with a big bear with a big lion or tiger, the lion an tiger wouldnt want to fight because the bear would size them up first then go in for the kill.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:22 PM by lion man
lion man, there is but little proof that fights between lions-tigers and grizzly bears took place, and there is certainly no 'reliable' documents which showed they had won. 
 
A lion or tiger, of equal size as compared with the grizzly, and greater aggression, as well, would be the usual winners.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:31 PM by damon
Thank you, Lion Man. In just a bit more recent history, in Old California, when owned by Spain, the people had animal fights in a big arena. These people kept records of each and every fight. The champion killer beast was a Mexican grizzly. Before they aquired the grizzly, they had various champion beasts which would last a few days to a few weeks. But, the grizzly fought regulary for several years until the sport was outlawed. The same grizzly killed several big bulls, a number of lions and tigers. Nothing that they could catch or purchase could stand against a full grown male grizzly.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:33 PM by Toby Ross
No prob toby ross, the grizzly bear is my fav animal and IS the biggest and strongest land carnivore. Think about it damon, the polar bears evolution starts with brown bears, and all brown bears evolution start with the largest and strongest land mammal canivore the short faced bear and the cave bear. The tiger for instance evolves from a sabor toothed cat which wasnt huge, it just had large teeth is all and not that strong of a bit force. The lion evolves from the american lion and the cave lion which is much larger and stronger than any sabor toothed cat and about the same size as ligers, and sometimes bigger. So the grizzly has it in its DNA to be the biggest and strongest land mammal carnivoe in the world. Oh and short face bears were known to take wooly mammoths down single handed, and not just every now and then either.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:22 PM by lion man
Ok don't get me wrong but I have to wonder, where the hell are you getting your information from lion man? 
 
Tigers did not evolve from saber-tooth cat the tiger and the saber tooth cat are big cats but they were of different subspecies, neither did the modern day lion come from the cave/American lion, BTW the American lion MIGHT be a new world tiger. The closest relative to the saber tooth cat is the clouded leopard not the tiger. 
 
Nor did the grizzly bear evolved from the short nosed bear. Spectacled Bear evolved from short nose bear dumb ass. And how could short nosed bear kill a wooly mammoth and they weren’t even hunters they usually stole from smaller animal’s dire wolf/saber tooth cat/ American lion or ate the decay or ate smaller animals but there is no way the short nosed bear could have killed a full grown healthy wooly mammoth so quite making up stories in your sick fantasy world, man dumbest shit I’ve ever read. And short nose bear had very thin bones even a jaguar bone density is thicker all that bear had was size and maybe speed but that’s it. 
 
So I ask out of curiosity where the hell are you getting this information form lion man, it barely makes sense. 
 
And toby you are just being very stupid when you agreed with that non sense lion man post 
 
And the brown bear did not come from cave bears but it was a close relative ass.
Posted @ Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:50 PM by Rick
It's like this Rick, Lion Man might have gotten his evolution a little twisted, but the short-faced bear was the apex preator in America in the Ice Age. In Europe, the usually vegetarian cave bear could easily take a meal from any cave lion. Ursus arctos was then and still is today superior to any of the big cats.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 6:25 AM by Toby Ross
Ursus spalaeus, the cave bear was, pound for pound, the strongest carnivore that ever lived. He was as tall as Ursus arctos ( 10 feet tall ) and weighed from 800 to 2200 pounds. No cave lion or saber-toothed cat could stand up to this bear. In America, Arctodus simus, the short-faced bear stood 5 feet and 3 inches tall ( average ) at the shoulder. He could easily kill an American lion. Ursus arctos migrated from Europe to America where he became the apex predator of both lands. He still is.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 6:33 AM by Toby Ross
When I was stationed in Key West, Florida ( marines ) in 1969, I read a book that one of my GI buddies loaned me. It was a copy of the California animal fights records, translated into English. That grizzly killed cougars, black bears, jaguars, lions, tigers, and bulls, and bison. He won every match he had until the killings were outlawed. *THAT is history.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 6:40 AM by Toby Ross
Damon. You keep running to these nerds in Frankensteins lab who are looking at bones and tissue under a microscope. If a fight could be won like that, then why put 2 boxers in a ring? Just give them a check-up and let the doctor announce the winner. OPEN your eyes and look at the animals. Look at what they can do. The big cats cannot copy the feats of strength of a grizzly. Sure, they're quicker, they can jump higher. But a tiger is no where near as strong as a grizzly.  
 
You have said that a lion or a tiger could overturn the same logs and boulders as a grizzly. I say bovine droppings! And the tiger could only scatch the suface of frozen ground. I will still say that Ursus arctos is double or perhaps triple the strength of any big cat of equal size.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 6:51 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, who said anything about people in labs who looks at bones, and what not? 
 
You obviously do not know much about science, to have said such a thing. I`m talking about a study of live animals, not dead. 
 
And indeed, i know what these animals can do. The big cats are every bit as strong. And, if you notice, the big cats and bears have a different build, different shaped claws, ect....that`s why the bear could do certain things, and the cats can`t, and vice versa. 
 
But, you obviously know little about strength, or how an animal comes to be strong. A lion or tiger is roughly 10 times as strong as an average human. A grizzly bear, of equal weight, will not be stronger than that. 
 
Strength, as i`ve told you, is based upon the actual percentage of muscle an animal has, the muscle cross section, which in turn is related to size, as well as the amount of muscle fibers used in any given movement. 
 
Do your research man.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 7:58 AM by damon
There is also quality of muscle. I have known men who are small-built who were stronger than much bigger men with bigger muscles. Cats have elastic muscle for flexibility. Bears have hard muscle for brute strength. Add this to the fact that a grizzly has bigger, heavier, denser bones than a tiger. Bigger bones for bigger muscle which is also muscle for quality strength. I believe that you are being totally rediculous in saying that a tiger is stronger than a grizzly. That is an absurd statement.  
 
You are realizing that the tiger's speed and flexibility is not enough to defeat the bear. So, you will tell tall tales about the tiger being stronger than a grizzly. I believe that most children above the age of 5 knows better.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 8:57 AM by Toby Ross
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38q2fDtDDvM
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 9:14 AM by Toby Ross
http://en-allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/2009/4/strongest-animal-earth.htm
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 9:40 AM by Toby Ross
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Conflict-3754/hi-16.htm
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 10:02 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, i`ve recently shown that vid, already. Do you even look at the links i show? 
 
If you are not going to follow my posts, or view the links i show, what use is it for you to reply to a post you haven`t looked at properly? 
 
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 12:06 PM by damon
Toby, the muscles of the big cats, have nothing to do with flexibility. It is the lose construction of their tendons (being connected to the bones, by the muscles). Likewise, the agility of these specimens is due to the fact they have a greater percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers. 
 
The muscles of the lion or tiger is no more flexible than those of the bear. 
 
Check these vids out; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DHSRPUOb7g 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RT553gLyV4
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 12:21 PM by damon
I have been reading your stuff. Now, so far as I can understand, you watched that one video where the grizzly showed us what a tiger cannot do. But, I have sent out more than this one and NEVER got a comment on any of them.  
 
You hear yourself. You try to explain your misconceptions, and refuse to hear what I have explained. Some people have different quality muscles than others. NOT all muscle tissue is alike. Tigers have a lighter skeleton with less dense bones than bears. Upon this lighter skeleton is attached a lighter more flexible muscle system. IF you cannot understnd this, try opening your eyes and actually look at tigers and brown bears.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 4:03 PM by Toby Ross
Did you go to the last 2 sites. Everywhere I look ( besides blogs and amature videos ) all experts and all professionals agree that Ursus arctos is stronger than a lion or a tiger. Everywhere... except for you look long and hard for the hard to find people who make outlandish claims about big cats and bears.  
 
If you actually showed ALL from both sides, the evidence would be clear. Ursus arctos is the worlds strongest and most powerful land predator: the apex land carnivore.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 4:11 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, i don`t agree with any site or expert that states the bear is stronger, with no actual study to back it up. Was the strength of the grizzly as compared with the lion-tiger ever compared?....no, so, you cannot say with any certainty that the grizzly is stronger. 
 
I also do not pay much attention to the allexperts website, in which almost anyone can become an 'expert'...even a high school student, and the site actually says the info you receive is not professional.  
 
Why would i follow a site of that nature?...particularly when some of the answers from the 'experts' i`ve seen were purely wrong.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 5:21 PM by damon
I saw your tiger and your lion attack a dummy? There was no show of strength there, like toppling a dumpster end over end without effort. I was not impressed. Your last message starts out: "I don't agree with any site or expert that states the bear is stronger". Unquote. I believe that much of your last message.  
 
You come to this site with this rediculous claim. You skip over more learned info than you want to show.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 5:46 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, why did you only copy the part of my post that you wanted to see?...i said more than that. I don`t merely trust estimates....there must be an actual study that proves it, for it to hold any merit. 
 
I don`t skip over any info, unless if has no actual proof of the statement, I show only actual studies that proves the data they present. Isn`t that much more reliable?
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 5:50 PM by damon
The proper way to measure 2 animals for strength contest or a fight, if you want a fair match. As follows. Measure, with each animal on all fours. From the center of the chest to the rear of the animal. Neck, tail, and head not included. The more powerful animal will be the hreaviest. That is why choosing by weight would give the lighter built animal a distinct advantage.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 5:55 PM by Toby Ross
All of the most reliable sites that I can find claims that the grizzly is stronger than any big cat. All of them! Except in blogs which I refuse to read.  
 
So, you are expecting me to believe that EVERYTHING you can find says that the big cats are stronger than Ursus arctos?
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 5:59 PM by Toby Ross
Another way, from a different point of view, collect the weight of each sub-species of living tiger. Get an average. Collect the weight of every living sub-species of Ursus arctos. Take an average. Then pit the grizzly and tiger at the proper weight of each individual.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 6:04 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, where did i say the big cats were stronger?...i said they were equal in strength, if i`m not mistaken. 
 
And, i already compared the weight of all subspecies of tiger, and all those of grizzly bears.....there was little difference. In fact, what difference there was, was actually in favor of the tiger, but this is due to the fact that some populations of tigers were baited, and usually only a limited number of specimens were weighed, which often gives biased results. 
 
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 6:18 PM by damon
I do NOT believe you. I will take an average myself. I do NOT believe that you included the Kodiak, the Coastal grizzly, or the Coastal Siberian brown bears. I will start in the morning doing an average of each sub-species of tiger. Then get the weight of the average Panthera tigris. I will do the same with Ursus arctos.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 7:00 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, kodiacks are brown bears, as are the coastal variety, and not grizzlies. So no, i did not include them. 
 
And, i do not think you have the data for every population of tigers (this should only include siberians and bengals, the two biggest variety) or even every sub-species, as most sites only give but a 'guesstimate', and of course, not all are available through the web, even though i do have every modern document on the subject, and i`m not lying. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 7:07 PM by damon
No. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. You and Mr.Animalia started tossing in the exploits tigers other than Siberian. That made this fight become Panthera tigris vs Ursus Arctos.  
 
I use the term "grizzly" now as simply the common name often used for any member of Ursus arctos. But, this is about tiger vs grizzy aka Ursus arctos.  
 
Why should I allow you to have both the Siberian and Bengal, the 2 biggest tigers, but I am restricted from the biggest grizzlys?
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 7:39 PM by Toby Ross
OK. You get an average of each male tiger: Siberian, Bengal, Indochinese, Malayan, Sumatran, and South China.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 7:47 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, any other sub species of tigers, other than bengals and siberians, are too small. We are speaking only of those closely resembling in weight. 
 
A kodiak bear is not a grizzly, neither is a coastal brown bear, so, not being grizzlies, they aren`t the biggest grizzlies. The siberian tiger is panthera tigris althica, while the bengal tiger is panthera tigris tigris....use their proper names. 
 
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 7:54 PM by damon
Get me an average of each male grizzly. Eurasian B.B. / Kamchatka B.B. / Siberian B.B. / Inland grizzly / Coastal grizzly / Himalayan B.B. / Brown Bear ( black grizzly )/ Kodiak Bear / Tibetan Blue Bear / Syrian B.B.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 7:58 PM by Toby Ross
The Bengal is NOT a Siberian!  
 
YOU do not understand this. Many naturalists ( as I watch them often ) refer to any/all species of brown bear as "grizzly". But, regardless of this... 
 
When you and Animalia started talking about tigers killing gaur, elephants, rhino, sloth bear, etc. ,You made this Panthera tigris vs Ursus arctos. Period.  
 
Yes, that means the smaller tiger too. And yes, Kodiak and all other brown bears.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 8:04 PM by Toby Ross
Weight of average adult male Panthera tigris... 
 
Weight of average adult male Ursus arctos... 
 
*Be honest.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 8:07 PM by Toby Ross
Toss in...the average weight of the average adult male lion. That cool cat is forever being tossed into the mix.
Posted @ Friday, January 15, 2010 9:09 PM by Toby Ross
Oh, Damon...YES I do pay attention to your posts. Just because I do not agree with your rediculous statements, dosn't mean I'm not paying attention.  
 
Now, you were talking about measuring muscle mass on these animals by percentage. Did you take under consideration the much smaller frame of the lion/tiger?  
 
And I still believe that, if you really wish to decide which is stronger, measure the animals so that both have the same body length. If you go by weight, you give the smaller built animal a distinct advantage. If we were to go according to height, we would simply be favoring the one with the longest legs.  
 
A grizzly with a 7 foot body length would be heavier and stronger than a tiger with a 7 foot body length. This is because the grizzly has a bigger frame, heavier bones, and more muscle mass.
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 5:58 AM by Toby Ross
It's funny when I go back and read it. You wish to use only the 2 biggest species of tiger, while you want me to use only the smaller Ursus arctos. 
 
Taking an average of each sub-species would determine the size of the average tiger vs average brown bear. Or, to make this a perfectly even match, get a weight of each at the same body length.
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 6:04 AM by Toby Ross
Siberian - 500 pounds. 
 
Bengal - 490 pounds.  
 
Indochinese - 420 pounds. 
 
Malayan - 265 pounds. 
 
Sumatran - 300 pounds. 
 
South China - 330 pounds. 
 
Average tiger weighs - 385 pounds.
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 6:37 AM by Toby Ross
I could not find a weight for the Himalayan brown bear or the Tibetan brown bear. 
 
Eurasian b.b. - 380 pounds. 
 
Kamchatka b.b. - 1000 pounds. 
 
E.Siberian b.b. - 1000 pounds. 
 
Inland grizzly - 400 pounds. 
 
coastal grizzly - 700 pounds.  
 
Ussuri b.b. - 1000 pounds.  
 
Kodiak - 1200 pounds.  
 
Syrian b.b. - 420 pounds. 
 
Average brown bear - 762.5 pounds. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:15 AM by Toby Ross
As a species, Ursus arctos is bigger and stronger than Panthera tigris. We have a 385 pound tiger vs a 762 pound brown bear.  
 
I'll bet that, if we were to take a brown bear and a tiger, measured by body length, we would get a similar weight difference.
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:19 AM by Toby Ross
Damon, you can do your own average weights of each tiger and brown bear species. But, I believe that I have now proved that Ursus arctos is the apex land carnivore. 
 
I do not know how to get a weight from a tiger or brown bear going according to body length. But, I feel certain that the brown bear would prove to be the bigger and stronger of the two. 
 
You claim that a tiger is just barely below the brown bear in strength. Mr.Animalia claims that the tiger is stronger. You are both wrong. 
 
If you would prefer to match your biggest tiger, the Siberian against my biggest brown bear, the Kodiak, we can play that game too.
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 9:31 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, i never stated the tiger was barely below the brown bear (i always talked of the grizzly) in strength, but instead equal. 
 
And, i assure you, i`m not wrong on this matter. You obviously do not understand what constitutes strength, or jumping ability, especially with your statement that tigers have more elastic muscles, which is completely false. Muscles are the same in any animal. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 9:37 AM by damon
Also, Toby, you are completely wrong concerning all those weights of the bears. 
 
Get the weights from actual published documents from real measurements, not just some website. 
 
And, a 350 lb tiger is smaller than normal. They average up to 420 lbs, and some populations, like the chitwan tigers, averaged 235 kg.  
 
Give a fair comparison. But, of course a bear which is much larger will win in a fight. That is why my comparison revolved mostly around grizzly bears, which are no larger. Because, why compare a specimen which is MUCH larger?...how fair is that? 
 
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 9:43 AM by damon
This is not about the average weight of tigers in some particular area. Read my blogs. It is the average weight of the males of each species...averaged out for a weight of the average tiger. This shows that the average brown bears are nearly double the weight of the average tiger. 
 
IF you do not like that face-off, get me a weight for each animal at the same body length. That would be a fair fight. 
 
Or ( choice #3 ) pit your Siberian against my Kodiak.  
 
WHat you seem to want is a fight between a big tiger and a small bear.
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 1:00 PM by Toby Ross
I found online a Siberian tiger, 13 feet long that weighs 900 pounds. 3 feet of that is tail. So, a tiger aprox. 10 feet body length weighs 900 pounds.  
 
I found where a Kodiak bear, 10 feet long, weighs from 1400 to 1500 pounds.  
 
There is a 500 to 600 pound difference in a tiger and a brown bear of the same body length. This is proof positive that the bear is by far the heavier and stronger of the two. No big cat can compete with Ursus arctos.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:08 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, there was no siberian of 900 lbs, and 13 feet. That was just an estimate. Even the largest siberian, on record, did not reach such measurements. 
 
And yes, kodiak bears, being larger, on average, grow to greater sizes. And, 10 ft is FAR too large a body size for tigers or bears. even 7 ft is too large a body size for a siberian tiger.
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:32 PM by damon
Also, Toby, i never said this was about the average weights of tigers in one specific area. Indeed, an average of all the populations (all the populations of bengals, i mean) is about 420 lbs. Siberians average about the same.
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:34 PM by damon
Regardless that these might be rough estimates, a tiger and a brown bear of equal body length, the bear is going to be MUCH bigger and stronger. This is the only fair way to compare. It shows the physical difference. That is why, when you compare a tiger and a brown bear of equal weight, the tiger is much longer. You need an over-sized tiger to equal an undersized brown bear.  
 
So, how much would a tiger weigh with a 7 foot body length? A brown bear with a 7 foot body length?
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 8:24 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, length does not indicate weight. It could be a comparatively long specimen, of small size, or there could be a short specimen, of large size (i.e. fat). The same with bears. 
 
But, you are comparing a bear which is quite nearly the biggest sub-species of brown bears, even though the original matchup was between a bengal-siberian against a grizzly bear, which averages from 420 - 575 lbs, as i`ve just recently came upon some new records (no estimates).  
 
Posted @ Saturday, January 16, 2010 9:03 PM by damon
I know that length does not indicate weight. Pay attention. When both animals are compared at the same body length, the more powerful species will be heavier and bigger. They can be measured from nose to rear, excluding the tail, since both animals have a short powerful neck.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 10:02 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, length is not an indication of power, and of course, actual 'power' is different than strength. You also cannot say which animal will be heavier, at the same length, for the reasons i gave before. It applies to both animals.  
 
But, here is a comparison; 
 
Grizzly, size of specimens, at certain ages; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/meanbodymeasurementsofgrizzlies-1.jpg 
 
Weight of grizzlyes, at certain ages; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/weightofmaleandfemalegrizzlies.jpg 
 
Weight and measurements of a few siberian tigers; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/weightoftigers-1-1.jpg 
 
Male tiger number 9, at 189 kg, had a body length of 199 cm, his age being between 6.5-7.5 years. 
 
A grizzly bear, at the age of about 7 years, averaged 189.4 kg (a total of 7 males weighed) with an average body length of 188.5 cm, over curves, and 159.7 cm, between pegs. So, over curves, the tiger was about 10 cm longer, but equal in weight. 
 
So, the average bear, lb for lb, is usually shorter in body, but equal in weight.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 10:37 AM by damon
Bovine droppings! You are trying to weasel out. Take a young mature healthy normal male tiger, and a young mature healthy normal male brown bear, both at the same body length. The species which is the more powerful will be thicker built and heavier. You will recognize the stronger one as being the bear.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 10:53 AM by Toby Ross
As I said before, you go by weight, you give an unfair advantage to the weaker animal. That is the whole reason for going according to body length. YES, the bear will be heavier. That is the whole point. The bear has more musacle mass.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 10:57 AM by Toby Ross
And stop using metric. I am old school. There was no metric when I went to school.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 10:59 AM by Toby Ross
Your message proved my point. To have the brown bear and tiger at equal weight, the tiger must be longer. That means weaker. The bear has a thicker heavier frame because he has more muscle mass than a tiger of equal body length.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:03 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, what`s the problem?...you asked my opinion, and i showed you some records that might perhaps shed some light on this. The animals were basically the same age, and of near equal weights. And, i`ve found little difference between siberians-bengals and grizzly bears at equal length. 
 
And, i did not give an unfair advantage to the weaker animal....as indeed, they are as equal in strength as they are in weight. And, you are also stating something which is not proven. The bear does not have more muscle mass. In fact, no mammal yet studied has a higher percentage of muscle mass, as compared with the cats. Indeed, in one record (in actual study, and not estimates) indicated the lion had the highest recorded muscle mass, among mammals. 
 
Can you prove the bear has more muscle? 
 
And, you stated that i stop talking in metric. Even a kid can understand the words i used. If you don`t know what a word means, look it up. And, i also did not weasel out, as i answered your question.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:06 AM by damon
Toby, the tiger was only 10 cm longer. Their are records of shorter tigers, of equal weight. So, what`s your point? 
 
My post does not prove your point, and a length advantage of 10 cm is not significant, and of course, that does not indicate weakness, either. Strength is based upon muscle mass, cross section of muscle, and the percentage of muscle fibers actually used in any given movement. That holds true regardless of the species or animal.  
 
A chimpanzee, for example, though smaller and of less muscle mass than the average human, is still 2 to 4 times as strong. This is due to his greater cross section of muscle, and indeed, i can produce the study to prove it. 
 
Likewise, the average muscle mass of a man is greater than that of a gorilla, yet, the gorilla is MUCH stronger....and again, this is due to the fact the cross section of muscle of these animals is much greater, and they use a greater percentage of muscle fibers in any given movement. Likewise, a greater proportion of their body mass is located in the upper bodies of these animals, denoting even more strength.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:11 AM by damon
Your so-called recordss and studies are total crap! Now I know that you cannot be trusted to deliver real evidence unless it is in favor of the tiger. This is Kindergarden easy. Look at a tiger ( ever try that? ). When the tiger is facing you, he looks flat at the sides. No bulk. When a brown bear faces you, you see lots of bear on either side. Bulk! If you talk a picture or model of a tiger and that of a bear at equal body length, you clearly see a much bigger bear. 
 
So...Let me ask you this. If you can tell me how tall a tiger can be, standing upright on two feet, from the head down. ( try not to lie ).
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:18 AM by Toby Ross
This is what I found. A Siberian tiger can be up to 11 feet long and weigh 660 pounds. Considering than aprox 3 feet of this is tail, we have a tiger of aprox 8 feet in body length. 
 
A brown bear with a body length of 8 feet and 4 inches weighs from 1100 to 1500 pounds. 
 
 
 
Hmmmm. Why do I come up with bigger numbers? And these anyone can look up. 
 
Oh. I do not want to hear you crying wrong bear! wrong bear! When you "tiger people" started tossing in the Bengal, then this contest became Panthera tigris vs Ursus arctos.  
 
There is a 440 pound to 840 pound difference between the tiger and the brown bear. But, since this bear is 4 inches longer, I'll guestimate perhaps the bear is only 400 to 800 ponds heavier ( smile ).
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:59 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, i never even showed records in favor of the tiger...so what are you talking about? 
 
And yes, a bear is wider than the tiger, but, shorter in body, both vertically, and along the length of the spine. So again, your point is a rather false one. 
 
The bear would be no heavier, at equal lengths. And, why would i lie?....all the info i`ve presented thus far, has been scientifically documented. And besides, lying proves nothing. The height of the tiger, on average, would be about 7 ft, perhaps a little more.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:02 PM by damon
Are you playing stupid, or is it real? You said a bear is wider than the tiger but shorter in body length. GEEZSUS KRYST! This is my point!!! Do NOT go with a bear that is shorter in body length. 
 
Do you NOT understand equal length? A tiger with a 6 foot body length would be much lighter than a brown bear with a 6 foot body length. I am not talking ounces here. You said "the bear would be no heavier, at equal lengths". Does this mean that you believe that thew tiger at equal length of the bear is also of equal weight?
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:31 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, i was basing my statements off the average size of these animals, and indeed, on 'average', the grizzly would be shorter in body. A grizzly bear which is of equal length, may be slightly heavier, or it may not be. But, the difference would be very slight...probably by 5-10 lbs. 
 
And, no, a tiger with a 6ft body length would not be much lighter than a bear of the same length....the difference in weight may be as little as 5 lbs, or there may be no difference at all, the difference in length being but very slight, anyway. 
 
I believe that a tiger and bear of equal length would be similar in weight, possibly equal. In some cases, and indeed, i do have the records, a shorter tiger was heavier than a bear of the same length. So, i think you would find the difference in the weight of these animals, at equal length, to be relatively non-existant, given they are of average size.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:41 PM by damon
Ursus arctos horribilis can stand 8 feet tall. In the coastal regions, he is from 500 to 900 pounds. In Katmai National Park and the Alaska Peninsula, a grizzly may reach 1000+ pounds. A brown bear and a tiger of equal body length or equal standing height ( bipedal ) the bear is MUCH heavier.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:45 PM by Toby Ross
I am very disappointed in you Damon. You are in deniel of the truth. I'm not sure if you are just lying to me or also to yourself.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:49 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, bears can and do indeed get big. But, this has VERY little to do with their length, as there could be a shorter bear of greater weight. It is due, mostly, to food intake. Simply put...the more the animal eats, the more weight it gains. 
 
And, we were talking of grizzly bears, not brown bears of katmai. And, you also gave no actual comparison of these specimens of the same height, nor indicated the records you just mentioned was real. Do you have any scientific documents concerning the measurements of those bears of katmai?...i probably do.....but, it`ll take a while to find them.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:54 PM by damon
Damon. I am beginning to understand that I am talking to someone with some book-smarts but no9 co0mmon sense. I KNOW that 2 bears of the same body length can have different weights. THAT is not what we are talking about here. 
 
Inter-species! The AVERAGE tiger of a particular length / an average brown bear of same body length. The bear would be heavier by hundreds of pounds.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:14 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, what do you mean i don`t have common sense?..i have the records to prove my point. What do you have?.... 
 
Nothing...you`re just talking outta your ass. And, here is a record of two tigers, the smaller specimen being 200 kg (440 lbs) and 185 cm in body length, over curves (just body length); 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/298496ef.jpg 
 
And, to recap, here are the grizzly bear`s measurements; 
 
"A grizzly bear, at the age of about 7 years, averaged 189.4 kg (a total of 7 males weighed) with an average body length of 188.5 cm, over curves" 
 
Notice the bear was longer, but weighed less. But, hold on....i thought the bear would be heavier, at the same length?....and note, those weights are fairly average for both these creatures.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:39 PM by damon
""A grizzly bear, at the age of about 7 years, averaged 189.4 kg (a total of 7 males weighed) with an average body length of 188.5 cm, over curves" 
 
 
 
damon, exactly when were these Bears weighed? This had to be just after coming out of hibernation, when they are at thier lightest. No Grizzly would be that small later in the year, especially not a healthy, mature Grizzly. The average weight of the Grizzly falls between roughly 400 and 900 lbs, with the weight going up the closer they get to hibernation. 
 
On average, a healthy mature Grizzly will weigh more than a healthy mature Siberian Tiger, by about 100 to 200 lbs, if the weight is taken late in the year. 
 
Personally, I don't think there's much argument as to which animal is heavier and stronger, if you go by the average of both animals, at thier best.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 2:40 PM by jcol
The bears were weighed from april through december, and the average weights of all the adult males (65 in total) was 193.3 kg, which happens to be exactly the same measurements given for rhodesia lions, from G.L. Smuts.  
 
And, it is biased to give weights merely during a specific time of the year...indeed, as in this study, the weights of these specimens should be gathered THROUGHOUT the year, for a more reliable figure, as there weights vary through the months, and an average should be given accordingly.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 3:42 PM by damon
Also, jcol, and Toby, we can further discuss the matter on my forum, here; 
 
wildanimalelite.yuku.com
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 3:44 PM by damon
http://www.walkingwithlions.com/animal_rentals_tiger.htm  
 
Look at the tiger / Look at the grizzly.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 6:22 PM by Toby Ross
Ya there should be no comparison with strength or size between the largest and strongest land carnivore the grizzly bear and the big cats at all. Theres just no way a lion, tiger ect could kill a large and healthy brown bear.
Posted @ Sunday, January 17, 2010 9:05 PM by lion man
Lion man, the big cats are the most combative animals on the planet (and, this is not a biased statement). There are actual studies done.....and indeed, lions actually seem to employ a certain tactic to fighting, and one which is very effective. Likewise, they have the higher testosterone, as compared with the grizzly bear, and most likely is the more aggressive animal. Group animals usually are. 
 
Lions also have a higher mortality rate, due to fighting. Indeed, packer states that when rival lions fight, one or more lions are likely to die.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 3:38 AM by damon
There are also records of lions and tigers killing some of these animals in a face to face battle.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 3:42 AM by damon
The biggest wild tiger on record was 12 feet long and weighed 845 pounds. Considering that a tigers tail is about a third of it's body length, this was an 8 foot tiger in body length. 
 
An average grizzly was measured at 6.5 feet and weighed 793.66 pounds. An extra one and a half feet would certainly give the grizzly more than an extra 42 pounds.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 4:48 AM by Toby Ross
That`s incorrect, Toby. The biggest wild tiger on record (which was a bengal) was 10ft, 7 in. between pegs, and 857 lbs. I know this, because i have the full document in proof of the record. 
 
That other record, of a siberian tiger, remains unconfirmed.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 5:03 AM by damon
Toby, that siberian was never confirmed, and i think it may have been an estimate. I`ve known of that record for quite some time, but have never seen any confirmation in the form of a first hand source. But, here is proof of the weight of that 857 lb tiger; 
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10502070/USNM395727 
 
The bengal was 10ft, 7 inches in length, and weighed 857 lbs. It was the longest (accurately measured) tiger on record (well, itshared the record with another tiger, as well as being the heaviest on record.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 5:53 AM by damon
I don't think Lions fight by choice, damon. They fight because they have no choice. If male adult Lions are to survive, they have to take over a pride. They grow too large to be effective hunters, which is not to say they can't hunt, but it's difficult for them. 
 
Taking over a pride also means that it's thier lineage that continues. 
 
As far as fighting goes, none of these predators, Lions, Tigers or Bears, hardly ever "fight" anything other than it's own kind. 
 
And they hardly ever fight aother predator bigger than itself. 
 
Male Lions with a pride drive away younger males in the pride to avoid future conflicts. 
 
As solitary animals, male Tigers try to avoid conflict if at all possible, because any injury can be fatal. Bears usually give way to larger Bears. 
 
As far as tactics are concerned, I just don't think a Lion or a Tiger can survive the straight-foward attack of the Bear. The Grizzly doesn't float like a butterfly or sting like a bee, it hits like a sledgehammer. And keeps on hitting. 
 
Not taking anything away from the big cats, but I just don't see them taking on a Grizzly and winning.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 6:10 AM by jcol
JCOL... Damon is saying that a tiger is equal if not heavier than a grizzly bear of equal body length. I know that this is impossible, but my recources are limited.  
 
Damon...I saw the records of your Bengal. My question is, what is USNM and why are they right and everyone else wrong? 
 
I cannot find the record grizzly. It seems that that fake tale of a 15 foot tall grizzly is EVERYWHERE. But, I did find Clyde. At 10 foot 2 inches tall, he was not the tallest. However, at 2400 pounds, he was the fattest Kodiak known.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 6:21 AM by Toby Ross
You are right jcol. At the same size ( equal body length ) the grizzly would maul the tiger. I sent Damon a video of a grizzly playing with a dumpster like it was a beach ball. He sends me a video of a tiger playing with a 15 pound dummy.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 6:26 AM by Toby Ross
and a 9 ft tiger (without tail) can weight 900 lb, and a 9 ft (straight up) can weight 1200 lb, there is only 55% difference, and that difference comes from bodyfat and heavy sceleten. the tiger is still alot longer, and more musclular. 
 
a grizzly bear is no match for a full grown siberian tiger
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 7:27 AM by Mr animalia
Toby, that dummy was 60 lbs. And, i`ve already shown that video of the grizzly bear, like a day before you did...which shows you do not fully read my posts. Likewise, the grizzly did not 'throw' the dumpster around like it was a beach ball. It just turned it over a few times, with the strength of about two men. But, of course, that was an awkward movement, the bear being on two legs at the time. 
 
And, in that video of the lion with the dummy...the lion managed to bend the solid metal pole anchoring the dummy....which was a great feat of strength in itself.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 8:23 AM by damon
Ted, never once did i say the tiger would be equal or HEAVIER at the same length. I said they would be equal or rather similar in mass, but by a slight difference and slightly in favor of the bear. 
 
But, i could find a record of the biggest grizzly.....
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 8:25 AM by damon
On my last post, i mean Toby, and not Ted. Sorry about that.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 8:26 AM by damon
Damon...here is more proof that you show and tell only that which agrees with your ideas. I'll bet you find tons of material that you refuse to share. 
 
Mr.Animalia claims that a tiger with a body length of 9 feet weighs 900 pounds. A tiger who is 9 feet including tail weighs 1200 pounds. Since you had no response to this, I assume you agree with your friend.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 8:32 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, no, i don`t agree with Mr. animalia, on this. In fact, there is no record in existance, other than some outlandish estimate, of tigers 900 lbs, and 9 ft without a tail.  
 
I`ve already told you this was an impossible size. However, i tend to stay away from the least intelligent of posts, particularly when i already stated such figures were not accurate. 
 
In fact, there is a lot of points mr. animalia put up, that i do not agree with.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 8:36 AM by damon
One site you had sent to me showed where ( you claim ) 2 tigers were weighed and measured. Actually, I did not even see the word tiger on that "torn piece of paper". It claimed that the tiger, of equal body length of a grizzly, was heavier than a grizzly. First of all, anyone could have typed this. Also, they did not have a scale to weigh a tiger over 500 pounds? Not very professional. 
 
And yes, you have claimed that a tiger of equal body length is as strong or stronger than a grizzly as well as heavier or as heavy as a grizzly of equal body lengh. 
 
Why do you tell jcol that you never made these claims?
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 9:05 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, that wasn`t a site...it was an image, from Dr. Melvin sunquist (i have his email, if you`d like to see it) who is probably the most respected source, concerning tigers. 
 
At that time, the only scale he had (it does cost a lot of money) had a capacity of 500 lbs. One tiger, of 200 kg, had a body length of 185 cm, over curves, as i showed you. And no, anyone did not type it. But, you can ask sunquist yourself, here is his email; 
 
sunquist@ufl.edu 
 
You can verify his email, here; 
 
http://www.wec.ufl.edu/faculty/sunquistm/ 
 
And, i said the average tigers (never said anything about length) was just as strong as the average grizzly. Never once did i say they were stronger. So no, i did not make that claim.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 9:48 AM by damon
Various populations of grizzly bears vary in size a greatr deal. Therefore you cannot get a realistic "average". Various tiger subspecies vary greatly, as do various subspecies of brown bear. 
 
So, to see clearly which species is the biggest / strongest built, we should look at them on an equal scale. That would be Panthera tigris ( any subspecies ) of equal body length with Ursus arctos ( any subspecies ). The stronger animal will likely be the one who is the thickest, broadest, and heaviest of the two.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 10:34 AM by Toby Ross
When you say "average tiger", are you speaking of average tiger or average Siberian or average Siberian/Bengal? Among the grizzly bears, there is a population around the Yukon area that are rather small bears. Your tigers that you are comparing to the grizzlys are bigger than the grizzlys.  
 
Let's compare them according to body length or bipedal height to get a good approximate average weight difference. 
 
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 10:40 AM by Toby Ross
http://www.bowhunting.net/bearhunting.net/bear2.html
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 10:53 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, when i say average tiger, i am talking of bengals and siberians, the ones more closely similar in weight to brown bears. 
 
Also, yukon bears actually average 190 - 222 kg; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/grizzlyaverageweight.jpg 
 
 
The males, i mean. Those other documents of lower weights, were likely their weights shortly after emergence from their denning sites, or at a point where grizzlies lose mass.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 10:56 AM by damon
I believe that the tiger has many advantages. Speed. Sharper longer teeth. Sharper claws ( about the same length ). Agility. Quickness. Ability to "hook" onto it's adversary. The tiger's incredible leaping ability. 
 
When I said that the brown bear would win 10 out of 10 fights, I was exaggerating, as I was TOTALLY outnumbered on this site. 
 
BUT...the fact remains that I believe with all my heart that the brown bear has weight and strength on his side, which I feel are two really BIG advantages.  
 
This is why I say that they should be matched at body length. I feel that this is the most "fair" way to go.  
 
I have more on myspace at: 
 
Toby Ross / Og-Lee
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 5:17 PM by Toby Ross
Years ago ( I am 61 ) I saw a book that had animals listed according to intelligence. I clearly remember that the bear was placed above the dog, wolf, lion, and tiger. But, I cannot find anything online with a list of carnivore intelligence.  
 
Not that a bright idea is going to help either animal. Just interested.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 5:23 PM by Toby Ross
I went to that site. It looks all very scientific and professional. Unfortunately, it was all Greek to me. I left school in 1966. The U.S.A. didn't start using matric until the mid 70's.  
 
Sometimes, I go to a metric conversion table. Otherwise, it is meaningless to me.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 5:30 PM by Toby Ross
Heres a world record grizzly 
 
 
 
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2007/01/29/new-world-record-brown-bear/ 
 
 
 
 
 
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/outdoors/urban-legends/images/killer-grizzly-bear-2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/outdoors/urban-legends/killer-grizzly-bear.html&usg=__94TPAQbWqo3g4H6Zs67PoTGEe6o=&h=579&w=400&sz=93&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=6cvFPUYuf_EUKM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=93&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Brecord%2Bgrizzly%2Bbear%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1 
 
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 8:09 PM by lion man
Yeah, thanks Lion Man. I have read several articles about that. It's kinda funny. I have been saying for years now, "any 8 year old kid could kill the world's biggest bear with a modern rifle". It takes no skill and no courage to shoot an animal. Just the simple movement of one finger.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 8:34 PM by Toby Ross
The world record lion or tiger wouldnt stand a chance against the world record grizzly, so why argue about the animals being the same size when you know that the brown bear still gets much bigger and much stronger. Duuuu!
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 8:43 PM by lion man
You are as right as rain, Lion Man. There is absolutely no doubt that Ursus arctos is the world's apex terrestrial carnivore. Just like T-rex, he doesn't have to be the best hunter. He can take the kill away from any other predator.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 8:56 PM by Toby Ross
Exactly, brown bears do steal food from other predators and does hunt prey when they get a good chance. A long time ago when humans didnt destroy the environment, the brown bears diet was 70% prey/meat and 30% vegitaion. So thanks to people, they had to resort to 40% prey/meat and 60% vegatation.
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 9:10 PM by lion man
lion man, that bear wasn`t a world record....it wasn`t even weighed. The second bear wasn`t weighed either, though certainly they both were massive specimens. 
 
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 11:43 PM by damon
Also, the discussion is not which animal gets bigger, but, which, at average weights, would win in a fight either between a lion and a grizzly, or siberian-bengal tiger vs grizzly. 
 
I would put my money on the big cats. 
 
And also, Toby, if you really did not believe the bear would win 9 out of 10 times, why say it? 
 
That is deception. You are giving people an answer different than what you actually believe, to sway there opinion on this matter. 
 
And likewise, the grizzly has no weight advantage (we`re not talking of merely brown bears, but grizzlies). And, i further doubt they are any stronger, at equal weights.  
Posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 11:49 PM by damon
Damon, I over exaggerated when I said that the grizzly would win 10 out of 10 times. In truth, I believe that the tiger might win as many as 1 out of 20 fights if he can maneuver onto the bear's back and get a grip on the bear's throat. And, here you are again saying it's alright if you toss in a Bengal tiger or a lion. But, we are to stick only to the American grizzly. You do not sound very confident in your big cats.  
 
You claim that your tiger ( any subspecies ) at equal body length, is as heavy and as strong as my brown bear ( any subspecies ). I say that the bear would be much heavier and much stronger.  
 
Since you are so set on this bear being a grizzly, are you admitting that Ursus arctos is the world's apex terrestrial carnivore? 
 
Also, I believe that, at the average weight of these animals, the grizzly is heavier that the average Siberian, Bengal, and lion.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:31 AM by Toby Ross
If measured at equal body length, the American grizzly will prove to be the bigger and stronger. If matched at equal weight, the lighter built animal is given an unfair advantage. If matched at equal body length, the more robust species then shows.  
 
An American grizzly, at equal body length with his adversary, will easily overpower a Siberian tiger, a Bengal tiger, an African lion, or a jaguar.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:25 AM by Toby Ross
From what I have witnessed in my life, the more robust is nearly alway the stronger. A grizzly who is 7 feet from nose to rump, will be thicker, heavier, and stronger that a tiger of equal body length. Also, when measure in body length, it does not matter if the bear is just out of hibernation, or fattened up for a long sleep.  
 
This is rather elementary. I can look at a picture of a grizzly and of a tiger and easily see that, at equal body length, the stronger of the two is obvious. The grizzly! 
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:52 AM by Toby Ross
From reading from a variety of sites ( even wikipedia now acknowledges the Bengal as the biggest tiger ) a tiger with a body length of 6.5 to 7 feet has an average weight of 475 pounds to 490 pounds. A grizzly with equal body length averages from 600 to 700 pounds. The grizzly is obviously the stronger animal.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:58 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, wikipedia is not a reliable site, and in fact it can be edited by anyone. The tiger is no larger than the lion. 
 
I have every modern document published upon the subject, after all. 
 
Tigers also do not reach 7 ft in body length. And grizzlies, of course, average less than 6ft in body length. And, i have actual records in proof of this.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:05 PM by damon
I did not say what body length a grizzly averages. And, if no tiger has a body length, from nose to rump, of 7 feet, then these stories of tigers 11 and a half feet long are simply stories? Is it not true that about a third of a tiger's length is tail?  
 
You tell me. How long is the body length, nose to rump, of a Bengal tiger?  
 
I already know that you wish to go into a big ordeal about data data data data. Bovine droppings! Give me a rough average, if your brain can handle that.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:21 PM by Toby Ross
I just visited about 8 or 9 sites. Every one of them, which gave a tiger's body length, stated up to 3.3 meters. Not one of these sites went under this as the maximum body length of a tiger.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:49 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, those sites were talking about the length of the body including the tail, and even those records are not accurate, as the longest tiger on record, measured accurately between pegs, was 10ft, 7 in. (tail included). 
 
I have every modern document (and many old ones as well) on the subject. If you give me you email, i`ll show you all the records. 
 
my email is brentonjimmy@gmail.com, or @yahoo.com
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:36 PM by damon
And, you also asked for a rough average (though i should mntion that tigers have reached a body length of over 7 ft, when measured over curves, though those type of measurements is not accurate) of the body length of the tiger. Well, it is between 6 - 6.5 ft in length, from the tip of the nose, to the tip of the tail. Few have exceeded a length of 7ft, though i believe a very minimal amount has (but i`m too lazy to dig within my records to find them at the moment) indeed exceeded that length, between pegs. 
 
But, few reliable measurements have been published, and many sites only give rough estimates, or well known 'guesstimates' upon the length of these animals. Still more sites merely copy the info from another site.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:40 PM by damon
Thank you. Would I be correct in assuming that a tiger 6 feet to 6.5 feet in body length would weigh roughly about 400 to 500 pounds?
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:22 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, a tiger of those lengths can be from 400, and, even more rarely, up to 800 lbs. So, you were not quite accurate. Of course, they average 420 lbs. Grizzly bears too, average a similar amount.  
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:39 PM by damon
toby and lion man 
 
a 6 ft grizzly is 600 lb 
 
a 6 ft tiger is 500 lb 
 
a 7 ft grizzly is 850 lb 
 
a 7 ft tiger is 700 lb 
 
is that a huge difference? now, a bears weight mainly comes from dense bones and fat; NOT MUSCLE (they have muscle but not as much as you think). a tiger/lion is not so heavy, but is has lighter bones and minimum bodyfat. now where you think all there weight comes from? MUSCLE! pure steel muscle! at the same lenght tigers are stonger then bears. 
 
now dont come and cry that a tigers muscles are elastic because they are no more flexible then a bears.Or atleast damon showed you a link with that proof. 
 
besides, why do you even argue that a bear will kill a tiger it's lenght while you know that the tiger is naturaly longer?
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:35 PM by mr animalia
bengal tiger or siberian tiger doesn't matter, the tiger will kill the bear every time, its nature, a bear is simply no match for panthera tigres. a lion will also be to much to handle for the poor teddy. HOPEFULLY a grizzly could beat a jaguar.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:40 PM by mr animalia
I realize this is very complicated, but I'll try to make it simple for you, Mr.Animalia. 
 
Some people claim that a lion is bigger than a tiger, because it is taller. They say that the tiger is "built" longer. Actually, the lion and the tiger have the same amount of vertibrate. The lion simply has longer legs.  
 
If the tiger is longer than the grizzly, then you are pitting the bear against a bigger tiger. If the tiger and the grizzly are at the same length, then it is an even fight.  
 
IF one species is heavier and more robust than the other, that is simply because that particular species is the stronger of the two.  
 
It's like if you compare a python with an anaconda. To see which is the heavier snake, they should be compared at equal length.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:48 PM by Toby Ross
@toby ross 
 
at the same lenght a tiger is stronger then a bear, I dont feel like xplainig this again. 
 
look, is you compare an alligator vs python (which should be a good fight) the gator should be 14 ft 1000 lb while the python 30 ft 220 lb. 
 
now a 14 ft python is no match for a 14 ft gator, but a 30 ft snake surely is. 
 
My point is: let both animals be there natural lenght and the fight is fair!
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:00 PM by mr animalia
You still do not get it. I was not talking about python vs anaconda in a fight. I was speaking of comparing two animals of a different species to see which is the more robust species. To do that, you compare them at equal body length.  
 
As for the apex terrestrial predator, it is indeed the tiger. Panthera tigris is a hunter and a natural born killer.  
 
Ursus arctos is the apex terrestrial carnivore. Although not a true hunter, the omnivorous brown bear is the biggest and strongest land-based carnivore.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:11 PM by Toby Ross
From where I am standing, it looks like an average Bengal tiger of 6 to 6.5 feet body length, weighs from 440 to 507 ponds. 
 
An average American grizzly with a body length of from 6 to 7 feet weighs from 350 to 850 pounds.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:37 PM by Toby Ross
Mr animalia and damon 
 
It doesnt really matter which animal is longer then the other! Sure, the lion and tiger are longer, but that doesnt mean anything about weight and strength! Ursus arctos is the biggest and strongest land carnivore of today, any zooligest or scientist would know that. Just a couple months ago i was at the toronto zoo, and i asked the tour guides/zooligests which grows bigger and gets stronger on average and overall (i already knew what the answer was) and they ALL said that it is a KNOWN FACT that the brown bear does get bigger and stronger then the lion or tiger on average and overall, and that it would easily win. They looked at me stupid after i asked the question. I did feel stupid since its a known fact! After they said to me, "if you dont believe us, go take a look at the three animals and compare what you see. It was pretty obvious.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:36 PM by lion man
Toby, it is indeed fair to compare a tiger to that of a grizzly of slightly less length, as indeed, the tiger is longer on average. 
 
However, the bear is most certainly of a wider form, with the greater measurement of girth, and overall weight is roughly equal to them. And, you also mentioned upper ranges as to the weights of tigers. They weigh from 318 - 516 lbs usually. 
 
grizzly bears 308 - 575 lbs, though on average, they weigh no more than tigers, and indeed siberians and bengals can reach 575 lbs as well.  
 
And, you obviously know little about what determines strength.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:40 PM by damon
Also, lion man, we are only referring to grizzly bears, not other populations of brown bears. And indeed, grizzlies are no larger than lions or tigers, on average. 
 
I also have actual records of the average body mass of all these animals (every modern document published on the subject, in fact) and indeed, there is little, if any difference in the weights of these specimens.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:43 PM by damon
damon, Toby Ross, and yeah even Mr. animalia; 
 
Let's not lose sight of what the original premise is; 
 
Siberian Tiger Vs. Grizzly Bear. 
 
We know that a Siberian Tiger's weight ranges from 400 to 518 lbs. There have been larger specimens, but this is the accepted norm. That would make the average weight around 460lbs. 
 
 
 
The problem lies with the Grizzly, in that in different geographical areas, Grizzlies differ in size. 
 
Now since the premise picked what is arguably the largest species of the Tiger line, (I assume that on average, we can agree the Siberian Tiger is Larger than the Bengal Tiger, and if I'm wrong, I expect somebody will correct me)I think it's only fair that we use a larger, geographical Grizzly. The coastal Grizzlies are larger than inland Grizzlies. 
 
These Grizzlies average between 500-900 lbs. This would put the mean average at about 700 lbs. 
 
So we're talking, on average, a 460 lb Tiger, against a 700 lb Grizzly. 
 
We're not talking about Bengal Tigers, Lions or Brown Bears. Just the AVERAGE Siberian Tiger against a AVERAGE Grizzly Bear. 
 
Length is just not important here. 
 
Weight is. 
 
Remember, the exercise is not about two animals of equal size. 
 
The difference in weight is more than 200 lbs. I don't think the Tiger can overcome that. 
 
Ursus Arctos Horribilis, on average, is just too much for the big cat. 
 
But i expect some will disagree. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:47 PM by jcol
lion man, you cannot tell the size of a bear just by looking at them, and of course, they often appear larger than they are, due mainly to their much longer fur, and shorter form. 
 
Also, we are comparing wild specimens, not captive....and indeed, those captive bears may actually get more food than the lions or tigers. But, i`ve also seen a bear, which looked large from afar, and it also appeared larger than one of his cage mates (which was a lion) but, when viewed together, the lion actually looked slightly bigger. 
 
But, i do have reliable records upon the mass of grizzly bears....reliable ones, at that, which indicates they are no larger than lions or tigers.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:59 PM by damon
jcol 
 
You make TONS of sence!! Get an average grizzly angaints an average siberian tiger and the outcome will be the bear killing the tiger. Dont get me wrong though, the tiger is a very impressive big cat and hunter, it is built to hunt and kill. But the grizzly on the other hand is just to big for the tiger to overcome. So what if the bear has lots of fat, thats the way they are and no one can change that. The bears fat also helps alot in a fight. If the tiger bit the bear, it would hve to have a really good grip, but that would only happen if the bear was standing still not doing anything. If the tiger swiped the bear, not only would it get it more angry, but the bears thick fat would absorb the blow and it would barely flinch. Bear wins with one smack at the tigers head.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:02 PM by lion man
As Damon is looking into his microscope for more data, Ursus arctos horribilis is mangling Panthera tigris altaica. The grizzly is much too big and too powerful for just one tiger.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:12 PM by Toby Ross
LMFAO!! He does have some good reliable information though.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:15 PM by lion man
lion man, how can the grizzly be TOO big for the tiger to overcome, given they are of equal mass? 
 
But, at equal weights, the fat content of the bear may not be much, if at all greater than that of the tiger`s, which can have a fat content of upwards of 20%. 
 
But, i have a couple of records of a tiger killing a brown bear, and several records of lions killing these animals....even a polar bear. So, how can you say they`d lose?.....i rather think the odds are against the bear, in this case.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:29 PM by damon
Damon says, "you cannot tell how big a bear is by looking at him". BULL CRAP! I can look at a rhinoceras and I can tell that it is bigger than the Billy goat.  
 
This is what I have been saying all along. Damon reads all of this "data" that he spouts like a preacher with his Bible.  
 
But, Damon does not look at the flesh & blood animals.  
 
As for these stories of big cats killing bears...most are totally fake. Siberian tigers hunt Asiatic black bears. Even with these, he goes after females and juveniles. He might, when no other prey is available, hunt brown bears. He then, naturally, hunts for the old, weak, females or cubs. The tiger ambushes the bear. Even a female brown bear might kill a tiger in a face-off. A tiger will never attack a full grown healthy male brown bear. A 
 
An American grizzly would be far too powerful for any big cat.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:44 PM by Toby Ross
damon, I'm sure you can find a story here and there of a Tiger killing a Brown bear, or a Lion killing a Polar Bear, or whatever. 
 
Again, what were the sizes of the animals involved? 
 
Really damon, if you were a betting man, would you really take a 460lb Tiger or Lion, over a 700 lb Grizzly? we're talking about the average weight of these two predators.  
 
 
 
A Grizzly can pack on a lot of weight the closer it gets to winter. Don't make the mistake that it's all fat. There is a tremendous amount of strength also.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:47 PM by jcol
Toby, a rhino is MANY times the size of a billy goat, so you would indeed be able to tell the difference in their sizes. However, i doubt you could guess the exact weight of either animal.  
 
And, this is especially the case with grizzlies and tigers, who are equal in weight. 
 
And, none of those records i have of these big cats killing bears is fake. They were actually documented. And, i`m not talking about from an ambush, either. But, most usually, if a tiger does ambush a female bear, there is little she can do. But, we are talking about males vs males, in a head to head battle. 
 
And, a grizzly is not too powerful for any big cat. Even a leopard has been known to kill a polar bear. And, i have the record with me.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:18 AM by damon
toby ross, I di some research: 
 
a tiger thats 7 ft (without tail) is about 675 lb while a 7 ft bear will weight about 500-800 lb, depending on which species. Now its a FACT that bears have heavy bones and a lot more bodyfat then a tiger. So who has more muscle? The tiger! who'se the better hunter? the tiger! who's faster? the tiger! who is a better leaper? the tiger! who has more dangerous weopan? the tiger! who's the more skilled fighter, the tiger! who has more experience? the tiger! who will win this fight? the tiger!  
 
I even have a video of a Female cougar scaring away a grizzly bear.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:08 AM by Mr animalia
I've seen that video and if the bear really wanted to kill the cougar it would have. I have a REAL video of a male cougar chasing a grizzly cub. The female scares the SHIT out of the cougar and would kill it if it was dumb enough to stick around! 
 
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUkWsl6A2Yk 
 
 
 
The cougar has no chance in hell when the female comes around. Even the cub looks equal in size and weight with the cougar!
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:14 PM by lion man
lion man, nice video; BUT this tiger vs grizzly NOT cougar vs grizzly. 
 
the tiger: 
 
more agile, more dangerous weapons, faster, better leaper, more muscular, better hunter, more skilled fighter, more experience. 
 
grizzly: 
 
more endurance, slightly heavier. 
 
now dont come and cry that grizzly bears are stronger because they are not! I will explain ones again: a 7 ft bear is 500-800 lb depends on which species. a 7 ft tiger (without counting tail) is 675 lb. Now the bear has a lot more body fat and heavier bones. tigers have lighter bones, minimum body fat. so who will have more muscle? THE TIGER 
 
panthera tigres destroys ursus actros every time.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:29 PM by mr animalia
Another point for toby ross and lion man: 
 
I've done some research about tiger vs brown bear and I found out that even in a face to face contest ( Not when hibernation!) the tiger has been known to kill Ussuri Brown Bears in russia, though somethimes its the other way around. But those species are far bigger and stronger then grizzly, they average 1000 lb vs 600 lb average of a grizzly. 
 
dont believe me and go research yourself, but this is true. 
 
So if a siberian tiger can kill a Ussuri, what kind of chance does an american grizzly stand?
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:41 PM by Mr animalia
Yes i know this is grizzly vs tiger, you were the first one to bring the cougar thing up so i anwsered it with one of my own videos. And even if a tiger has killed a russian bear every once in a 100 years, its probly a female or young cub, or an old bear that is sick and cant fight back. Besides, if your gonna talk about the russian specices, allow me to rain on your parade with the kodiak bear sub species. That would without a doubt destroy a lion or tiger with little effort. It might not even have to attack it, just roar or size them up and the lion or toger is gone for good.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:56 PM by lion man
Mr animalia, do you have ANY idea as to what the average wt of the Siberian Tiger is? 
 
DO you know what the average wt. of the coastal Grizzly is? 
 
A 675lb Tiger is very rare. Very, VERY rare. You should know this from all the "research" you've been doing. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:00 PM by jcol
We shouldnt even be talking that much about average weights, the brwon bear eats none stop and grows bigger and bigger every day. So what if it has to eat some plants and berries and other stuff like that, its no different then people in that matter. A tiger on the other hand, only makes a kill about 2-4 times out of 20, any expert would tell you that. So the tiger (no matter what species) is not going to get larger on average or overall beacuse of that fact! The bear will also get stronger everytime it eats to from its natural grouth and all the nutriance its getting when it eats food. Like some people say "Eat your food, itll make you big and strong." A grizzly bear is a perfect example for that saying.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:13 PM by lion man
jcol, I was talking about large tiger vs large grizzly now I'll have it the way you want: 
 
A tiger grows 6 ft 7 on average plus its tail which grows another 3 ft so a grand total lenght of 9 ft 7. and it weights 547 lb on average 
 
the male grizzy bear stands up at 7 ft on average, and weights 616 lb on average. 
 
tiger is agile, fast, strong, superior hunter, skilled fighter, more experienced hunter, better leaper, and more aggresion. except for endurance & weight i cannot see another advantage for the bear. 
 
and Lion man go do some re search then come back tommarow and say that tigers have been known to kill ussuri brown bear.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:13 PM by Mr animalia
I didnt say it hasnt happened, i was just saying that it doesnt happen on a day to day basis not even a year to year basis, just every now and than when a tiger really needs it, so dont tell me to go and research that, i know! A tiger trys really hard to stay away from compotion from other predators. But when theres no food around at ALL, it will either kill its own species, humans or bears. But they will look for the young, old, sick or weak from all the species because it cannot risk injury or its dead.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:24 PM by lion man
So dont tell me to go and reasearch it mr animalia , i know my stuff!
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:26 PM by lion man
lion man. yes conflicts between Brown bears and tigers happen rarly because they rarly meet and if they fo they ussualy avoid each other 
 
BUT when a tiger is hungry enough it will surely attack and probably kill it. Tiger have killed brown bears more often then bears killed them, dont try to prove the facts wrong. 
 
if a tiger saw a grizzly it will consider it to be a small Ussuri, and if it felt hunry it will kill & eat it. 
 
also at the same weight, the tiger has more Muscle mass and will be faster and more agile, strength will be about the sama, the tigers fighting skill and hunting experience will give it the victory over any brown bear, except maybe the kodiak.
Posted @ Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:52 PM by mr animalia
Mr animalia, where are you getting the average weights on Siberian Tigers and the coastal Grizzly of North America? 
 
I haven't seen this anywhere, yet. 
 
You're way off, but that doesn't surprise me.
Posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:09 AM by jcol
jcol, the grizzly bear ussualy weights between 500-732 which averages 616 lb while the tiger averages 419-675 lb which averages 547 lb. I got that from wiki, but most other sources are no different. 
 
and who said we are talking about coastal grizzly's here? as far as I can read there is no "coastal" in this article. if youre going to give the bear every advantage possible why dont you do the same with the siberian tiger? why just "siberian tiger" and not "Far eastern siberian tiger" who reach weights up to 700-800 lb. 
 
and I still did not get my answer: 
 
at 6 ft (without tail) long the siberian tiger weights 500 lb on average 
 
at 6 ft long a brown bear may vary between 485-600 lb depending on which subspecies. Most of a bears body mass comes from Heavy bones and fat. the tiger has lighter bones, minimum fat, so where does all that weight come from? MUSCLE! PURE STEEL MUSCLE! and which clown was telling us that at the same lenght the grizzly is far stronger?
Posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:38 PM by mr animalia
Mr animalia, what are you smoking? 
 
While it's true wikipedia list the range of weights of the Siberian Tiger as 420 to 670 lbs, it goes on to say that the Siberian Tiger Project, a protected reserve somewhere in Russia (I'm guessing) has reported that the average wt, so far as they can now determine, is 450 lbs. More importantly, they state that the historical mean wt is 475lbs. 
 
As far the Grizzly is concerned, the article did not specify which geographical Grizzly it was using.  
 
There are more Grizzlies living in the coastal areas than anywhere else. And while they're larger than inland Grizzlies, they are smaller than those Grizzlies that are found around the Alaskan Peninsula, and some national parks. 
 
The average wt of the coastal area Grizzlies lie between 500 and 900 lbs. The math is not hard, that puts the average at 700 lbs. 
 
But the fact is, that while the Tiger's wt remains fairly steady, the Bear will pack on more wt, the closer it gets to hibernation time. 
 
And if you think that the Bear's average or ultimate wt is just "heavy bones and fat", then you are woefully ignorant. 
 
Length has NOTHING to do with this. 
 
A 700 lb Grizzly is more powerfull than a 475 lb Tiger. 
 
Even if the Tiger has "pure steel muscle"! 
 
Tigers from Krypton. 
 
Who knew?
Posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:59 PM by jcol
mr animalia, even if the tiger somehow has more muscle, the grizzly is backed up by its fat and thick bones. So when it goes to hit the tiger, the tiger will be dead or it will run of stuned. And when the tiger goes to hit the grizzly the fat will absorb the blow no problem and get it more angry. And if the tiger went to bit the grizzly, like i said before, it would have to have a really good grip and be able to holed it for quite a long period of time. The grizzly would for sure be able to out minouver the tiger, push it away or over power it.
Posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:10 PM by lion man
bear doesn't win every time
Posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:27 PM by matt
Matt, it depends how big it is. I say the bear will most likely win 8-9 times out of 10.
Posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:18 PM by lion man
Lion man & jcol, no, after some more research i found out that a grizzly bear weight averages only 550 lb, a siberian weights 500 lb on average. Proof: 
 
http://www.greatbear.org/brownbear.htm 
 
pound for pound a tiger is stronger, its also faster, a better leaper, more agile, better hunter, more superior fighter, more experience and like all cats; very smart. 
 
the grizzly has more endurance, I cannot see another advantage. 
 
if we only look at muscle, fat and bones: 
 
the grizzly bears weight will be 33% fat, 33% muscle and 33% bones 
 
the tigers weight will be 20% bones, 20% fat and 60% muscle. 
 
 
 
read this, think about it and then come back and say the tiger will win.
Posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:37 PM by Mr animalia
if both are average sized, so a 500 lb tiger vs 550 lb grizzly, the tiger will very likely win 9 out of 10 at least. a tiger is simply to much for a lone grizzly bear to handle. 
 
the tiger is simply to much for any Brown Bear to handle. Only the kodiak, kamchatka and ussuri brown bear would stand a proper chance. a poor lone grizzly is another story.
Posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:46 PM by Mr animalia
Your a little late to say anything in that matter, humans have already found out that the grizzly no matter how big is supperior in strength to any other carnivore in the world no matter what size mr animalia.
Posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:07 PM by lion man
mr animalia, you found one site that gives the wt. as 550 lbs, I can give you several that say different, but i suspect you've already seen those sites. 
 
You're cherry picking the info you want. 
 
You've been busted again, son. 
 
Please stop.
Posted @ Friday, January 22, 2010 5:47 AM by jcol
the grizzlies average wt. is 550 lb, seems you just cant accept it. I am not cherry picking. show me a site where it says the Grizzly bear in whole ( NOT just coastal) has an overall average weight of 700 lb, show me? 
 
and lion man, I explained this over and over again, you just cant accept the fact that pound forpound the tiger is by far stronger then a grizzly. polar bears and siberian tigers are worls top predetors. if every Mammal land predetor was equal in weight, Jaguars would take the crown. 
 
and my question remaines unanswered: 
 
the tiger is faster, more agile, better hunter, pound for pound more muscle, better fighter, more experienced, stronger and a better leaper. 
 
grizzly: 
 
more endurance. 
 
 
 
you dont have anything more to say so youre making things up right now. (look at youre comments)
Posted @ Friday, January 22, 2010 7:28 AM by mr animalia
Mr animalia, do you have some kind of learning disability? Or are you just being deliberately dense? 
 
Since the site didn't specify which geographical Grizzly it was using, I picked, not the smallest, nor the largest. The coastal Grizzlies fall right in between. 
 
Are you afraid that a coastal Grizzly is just too much for the Tiger, or ANY cat for that matter, to handle? 
 
In order to make it a "fair" fight, you insist on making the Grizzly as small as possible. 
 
Why not tie one paw behind it's back and blindfold it too? 
 
Why not face the Grizzly at it's most powerfull, when it's closer to, or even exceeds, 900 lbs? 
 
These ARE the facts, you just don't want to admit it. 
 
And what about your nonsense about the Tiger's mean weight? 
 
The facts are there for you and everyone else to see, if you can bring yourself to accept reality, which at this point, is a longshot. 
 
After all, according to you, the Bear is not strong, he's just fat, right? 
 
And the Tiger has muscles of STEEL!! 
 
You need to get a grip, son. 
 
ANd by the way, just how is it you think the Tiger is a "better" fighter, and just what does he have more "experience" of? 
 
 
 
Posted @ Friday, January 22, 2010 4:12 PM by jcol
jcol, since we dont no what grizzly it exactly is. we use the overaal average size. and sinds when is that 700 lb? the overall average size for a grizzly is 550 lb. A coastal grizzly larger then the average grizzly. the siberian tiger is 500 lb average. if you use the average of speceficly the coastal grizzly then I gues I'm aloud to use the average size of a Far east siberian tiger, which is between 600-700 and some are 850 lb. 
 
And you don't need to be an animal biologist to know that tigers are naturaly more muscular then bears, if at the same weight bears have more fat who'll have more muscle? a question that an 8 year old can answer. 
 
tigers are better fighter because they fight alot more then bears, who's diet is 90% vegie, and they are more experienced because they had conflicts with brown bears in russia, a grizzly never fought a tiger.
Posted @ Friday, January 22, 2010 6:33 PM by mr animalia
mr animalia, exactly what is the difference between a "Siberian Tiger", and a "Far East Siberian Tiger"? When was the last time anyone saw a "Far East Siberian Tiger"? 
 
Give me a link that has this information, please. 
 
 
 
And tell me, what makes you think Tigers fight more than Grizzly Bears? Where do you get this information? Near as I can tell, the Tiger is not "fighting", so much as it's hunting, usually smaller female, old, sick, or very young Bears. They do NOT hunt the big males. In fact, the big males are more likely to take a Tiger's kill away from it. When confronted by a big male Brown Bear, the Tiger almost always backs down. 
 
Those that don't, usually wind up dead. 
 
You keep talking about Tigers and Grizzlies being the same weight. You are wrong, but I guess the facts just don't interest you very much. 
 
It's a lot easier to argue that way.
Posted @ Friday, January 22, 2010 10:36 PM by jcol
yeah, i just said i doubt the bear would win EVERY time, but more than the tiger
Posted @ Friday, January 22, 2010 10:56 PM by matt
Jclo, go on wiki and type siberian tiger, in size and weight it will say that the 'Far east siberian tiger' regulary grows 700 lb and some 850 lb 
 
Now you still haven't given me a link where it says the average weight of a grizzly is 700 lb. 
 
this is cat vs bear, that can be split up by tiger vs brown bear, which gets split up into subspecies: siberian tiger vs grizzly bear. NOT specificly coastal or innerland, overall grizzly. 
 
You know that the overall average weight of a grizzly is 550 lb but you just cant accept it. 500 lb is overall average for a tiger.  
 
and no, siberian tigers kill russian bears more often then brown bears kill them, look at all the records daniel had. where are youre records of brown bears killing tiger? THE LIAR! if you say its the other way around you are lying to yourself. the grizzly will be the one to back up, why would a grizzly take the risk of attacking a fullgrown tiger when it can find some fresh vegies to eat?  
 
and tigers fight way more often, they compete against Brown bears far larger then a grizzly. a grizzly doesn't have any competition accept a brave cougar that stands up sometimes. A tiger is far larger and stronger then a cougar. 
 
Tiger: faster, agile, strong, better hunter, better fighter, experience with brown bears, more muscular, better leaper, fearless 
 
grizzly: more endurance, 1.1x heavier. 
 
the tiger is clearly far more superior then the grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, January 23, 2010 11:10 AM by mr animalia
Listen mr animalia, a grizzly bear (any brown bear species) and a tiger (any species) dont fight any more then the other because they will risk injury and if they risk injury they cant hunt down prey. Oh, but there might be some brown bears out there that fight alot because they dont just have to eat meat, they also eat veges and thats ok with me. Plants, veges etc, dont take much energy to find so bears can fight more then tigers. Also, grizzlys have to compete with other grizzlys, black bears, cougars and wolves. Alot of wolves to, up to 30 wolves even. And you know what, grizzlys can easily stand up to alot of wolves, but i have herd of several documentries of big trophy tigers being killed by a couple of domesticated dogs. That doesnt sound good for the tiger man. Grizzlys have it alot more rough then tigers so that will make them bigger, stronger and more agressive.
Posted @ Saturday, January 23, 2010 1:43 PM by lion man
Mr animalia, if you'll go on Wikipedia, under "Grizzly Bear", 
 
You'll see that Grizzlies,(in coastal areas) range from 500 to 900 lbs. You can hopefully do the math yourself and come up with the right answer. 
 
Wiki also lists the average range of the Siberian Tiger to be between 420 and 670 lbs. 
 
It is very rare for the Tiger to get up in the 700 lb range, as indeed, they list the Historical mean average of the Siberian Tiger to be 475 lbs. 
 
Read and COMPREHEND what the article says; the Siberian Tiger IS the "far-east" Siberian Tiger. 
 
Try to UNDERSTAND, that as the Bear gets closer to hibernation, he WILL get to 800-900 lbs. 
 
Tigers almost always back down from a large male Brown Bear. 
 
As I've said before, the Siberian Tiger is my fav. animal, but if it went up against a large male Grizzly, I'm afraid the Grizzly will be hacking up little Tiger furballs, for weeks. 
 
That's the truth. Learn to live with it.
Posted @ Saturday, January 23, 2010 1:55 PM by jcol
Mr animalia, READ and COMPREHEND! 
 
This is from Wikipedia, under "Siberian Tiger"; 
 
 
 
"There have been observations of bears that changed their path after coming across tiger trails, as well as of bears following tiger tracks with no signs of fear and sleeping in the same den.[4][24] However, despite the threat of predation, some brown bears actually benefit from the tiger's presence by appropriating tiger kills that the bears may not be able to successfully hunt themselves, as they usually dominate these disputes over kills.[25] 
 
 
 
Did you get that? 
 
Do you UNDERSTAND what that means?
Posted @ Saturday, January 23, 2010 2:01 PM by jcol
Jcol, you can make things up as much as you want. all the things in your comments are not true. You cant accept the fact that tiger hunt on brown bears, so now you really are making things up right now. Liar. Records speak louder then words, you can talk as much as you want, but you dont have anything to prove. 
 
Tigers are strong, agile, fast, better fighter, better hunter, more experienced, nore aggresion, fearless, better leaper, more muscular, more dangerous weapon. 
 
And an overall average for the grizzly bear is 550 lb, only 1.1x heavier then the tiger. except for endurance there is no other advantage for the bear 
 
The overall average for a grizzly is 550 lb, if you only use the coastal is 700 lb. only using the coastal means I am only using the Far East siberian tiger. I get an average of 660 lb. 
 
And where does in say that tigers only hunt on small Brown bear? GIVE ME PROVE! 
 
And we all no that Siberian tigers kill Brown bears more then bears kill them, dont try to prove the facts wrong. 
 
And if youre gonna use the Russian ars, I am aloud to use the Chinese black bear. did you know that it only takes one roar from the tiger and that bear is gone! 
 
the grizzly is far over rated on this site, Polar, Kodiak, Kamchatka, Urrusi; all those bears are far stronger then a grizzly. 
 
Last point: tigers are far more muscular then bears.
Posted @ Sunday, January 24, 2010 12:55 PM by Mr animalia
mr analmilia (Yes, I meant to spell it that way), 
 
So I go to Wikipedia, the site that you yourself suggested I go to, type in "Siberian Tiger", and find some facts about the Tiger that contradict almost everything you've said in the past 200 posts, and because you have a problem with reality, you call ME a liar! 
 
 
 
 
 
Does anyone else want to take a crack at this idiot? 
 
It's like talking to a brick wall, except the brick wall is more intelligent. 
 
Reason and logic seem to have no effect on this boy. It's becoming clear that we may have to get a big club and BEAT some sense into him.
Posted @ Sunday, January 24, 2010 5:19 PM by jcol
Im with ya on that jcol, bears are my fav animal espacally the brown bear species so i will back them up with all the info i know and more. When i talk about or argue about brown bears, i will never lie, i know my bear facts. mr animalia, you obviosly are challenged or affraid to argue with me, read my last couple posts and try to come up with an explanation with those TRUE and WELL KNOWN facts about the grizzly cuz im getting tired of repeating myself. The grizzly bear is the most dangerous animal in north america and is the most dangerous and agressive bear species in the world. In fact all brown bears are! The grizzly is not afraid to attack and eat people and the bear knows that people are the most dangerous thing to them, so what in the frickin world makes you think that a tiger roaring would scare them?! A tiger wouldnt scare a grizzly at all! If the tiger roared at the bear, it would feel challenged and roar back and size up the tiger. If that doesnt scare the tiger away, then the bear would easily over power the tiger and either the tiger would run away and never challenge or hunt a bear again, or the bear would kill it and make a meal of the tiger. KAPESH!!
Posted @ Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:03 PM by lion man
yes tigers have been kown to kill bears but smaller bears tho. not big huge grizzly bears the bear is to powerful for the tiger. look up bear vs tiger animal facoff on youtube its a show on animal planet about wild animals fighting they do research on both animals then show a video of them fighing its a cartoon but it still gives u a fight
Posted @ Monday, January 25, 2010 1:03 PM by one*time*nigga
Hey everybody Justone thing: Im from Vladivastok, Russsia and now living in Alaska, actually I saw Russian brown bear and Kodiak bear --- funny thing they are same( mayby just different language) And tigers do kill sometimes brown full grown bears!!!
Posted @ Friday, January 29, 2010 1:48 AM by Maksim
thats right "..in North America most dangerous.." but we are talking about The biggest cat on the planet and it is in Russia not in North America but Kodiak bear is same as Russian Brown Bear, I saw both of them!!!
Posted @ Friday, January 29, 2010 1:55 AM by Maksim
Cool you saw them both im sure lots of people have seen them both. A tiger would barely ever or never attack or challenge a fully grown brown bear male that would probly weigh 1000lbs. A tiger would be screwed if it did that so if it was an adult it would probly be sick, injured or very old and weak. A tiger stands no chance against a fully grown male brown bear of any species. Also, kodiaks will grow larger then russin bears not by to much but they do.
Posted @ Friday, January 29, 2010 10:44 AM by lion man
Good Job Lion Man! There is no documented proof that a Siberian Tiger hunted down and killed a healthy 700+ lb male Griz and I'll be damn if one even attempts to take on a Kodiak. No match No Match!
Posted @ Friday, January 29, 2010 6:57 PM by Go Blue
Siberian tiger have killed many brown bears before, from cubs to adult males. Look how many records daniel has that you just seem to ignore. I understand that as bear fans LionMan, Go blue, jcol and toby find it hard to accept those facts, especially when you are just a kid. Lucky Makism, daniel and damon still have brains to get this commen sense. TIGERS KILL BROWN BEARS LIVE WITH IT YOU BEAR LOVERS! a grizzly is simply a smaler subspecies of these brown bears and will stand no chance against a full grown male tiger. Jcol is the biggest liar around here sinds he keeps on telling stuf but has no proof at all. And wikipedia is as relieble as jcol emself. he has as many records as his IQ level. and lion man and go blue are living in a fantasy world. tigers kill Russian bears. polar/kodiak will make a very rare or no difference. A grizzly is alot smaller then these subspecies. he would stand barly a chance against a lion or tiger. Did you know that in the USA some grizzly bears have been found dead, killed by cougars! 
 
Hopefuly someone can pomp some sense in these guys.
Posted @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:34 PM by mr animalia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLD9vIsnQYY&feature=related 
 
another video of a tiger killing a brown bear. I believe i read someone saying youtube is a relieble source in animal fights
Posted @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:44 PM by mr animalia
I have alot more video, but i'm not gonna post them all here: 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KaMTOeOyfQ 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vsbvWOj0Nk 
 
If both are average a tiger hits 500 lb while a grizzly 550 lb. who said a tiger cannot overcome that weight difference? tigers kill animals 10x thare size! 
 
another point: yes one*time*ninja in animal face off the bear beat the tiger but they also said the lion can beat a brown bear.
Posted @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:53 PM by mr animalia
And so mr. analmalia comes out of hiding to post another load of crap. It's hard to read your stuff, kid. You sound like Pee Wee Herrman. Probably about as smart, too. 
 
You've already been exposed as a fool. Why do you keep coming back for more punishment? Do ya like being smacked around? Do you like having your ass handed to you, time after time? 
 
Give it up, kid. 
 
You lost this debate from word one. 
 
The average male Grizzly beats the average male Siberian Tiger. 
 
End of story, you are dismissed
Posted @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:17 PM by jcol
Jcol, I believe YOU have lost this aguement, you have no reasons and no proof. I have posted 3 videos of a tiger killing a brown bear. Like I said before you have as much Proof and reasons as you have braincells. Wher is youre proof? Tigers kill brown bear and live with it! Obviously that is very hard for you. Youre making things up and making others believe those are true. 
 
Animal face off Tiger vs Brown bear the tiger ended on the rooster, but that bear 10 ft 1500 lb, Not sure which subspecies but surely not a grizzly. Maybe a kamchatka or kodiak. its possible for the tiger to lose from those bears, but and 800 pound grizzly? that would be an easy meal for a tiger or a lion. they also said a lion could beat a kodiak. 
 
Now why would I not believe experts from discovery and do believe a stupid bear fan on the internet? you think youre winning but your not. 
 
Siberian Tiger beats grizzly bear every time. END OF DISCUSSION. This discussion can continue when jcol has as much proof as daniel has.
Posted @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 5:00 PM by mr animalia
Mr animalia, you are right and you are wrong. I never said a tiger could not kill an adult brown bear, it has happened i will addmit but not very often as you are making it sound. You are saying that a tiger could kill an 800lbs grizzly whenever it wants to?!! What are you thinking!! A tiger will ONLY EVER THINK about killing an adult brown bear if its the only living thing around for miles! A tiger is afraid of coming into contact of a large adult brown bear. Both brown bear and tiger try to avoid each other, but if they have to they will target each other for a meal. Carnivores hate to eat other carnivores and come into contact with them. But in a fight to the death im giving the advantage to the grizzly bear, although not ever time (unless its huge).
Posted @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:33 PM by lion man
Well mr. analmalia, of course I'm winning this little debate with you. 
 
Let's look at a few things objectively; you bash wikipedia, even though you've used excerpts from that very site. In fact, wikipedia is like any other site, and has listed the references in detailed footnotes from which they get thier information. 
 
You have used some of the very same info, such as how some Brown Bears turn away from Tiger tracks. But you always leave out the parts that contradict your claim of Tiger superiority, such as how Brown Bears are just as likely to follow those same Tiger tracks, and more often than not, take a Tiger's kill AWAY from it. You never mention that part, do you? 
 
 
 
You keep babbling about the size of the Tiger, but you're never honest, or too stupid to understand what is really being said on the various nature programs. They almost always give the upper range in size when describing the subject. It makes for better television. But the FACTS don't lie. 
 
From Wikipedia; The "Siberian Tiger Project", which has operated from Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik since 1992, had found that the heaviest male (T-20) weighed 205 kg (450 lb) and seemed to be the largest that they were able to verify, albeit from a limited number of specimens.[9] According to modern research of wild Siberian tigers in Sikhote-Alin, an average adult male tiger (>35 months) weighs 176.4 kg (389 lb) (the average asymptotic limit, computed by use of the Michaelis-Menten formula, gives 222.3 kg (490 lb) for male tigers) and an adult tigress 117.9 kg (260 lb). The mean weight of historical Siberian tigers is supposed to be higher: 215.3 kg (475 lb) for male tigers and 137.5 kg (303 lb) for females. [10] At least one authority suspects that this is the difference between real weights and hunter's estimates.[5] Dale Miquelle, program director of the Siberian Tiger Project, writes that, despite repeated claims in the popular literature that the Siberian is the largest of all tigers, their measurements on more than fifty captured individuals suggest that it body size is, in fact, similar to that of Bengal tigers.[11]" 
 
 
 
I don't expect you to be able to understand or comprehend what that means, but basically what it says that of the Male Tigers that they've been able to do research on, the average has been 389lbs, and the heaviest came in at 450lbs, and this is with live specimens. More importantly, the historical mean average of the Tiger comes to 475lbs. That's close enough to 500lbs, so let's be generous and say it's 500lbs. 
 
 
 
Now these studies were taken where, presumably, the most Tigers can be found. That would seem logical, right? 
 
By the same token, which is only fair, more Grizzlies live in coastal areas, than live inland. These are NOT the largest Grizzlies, just where the biggest numbers are concentrated. These Bears will range in weight, between 500 and 900lbs. Lighter as they come out of hibernation, heavier as they head INTO hibernation. So to be fair, we use the mean average, 700lbs. 
 
You say to use all Grizzlies to determine the average weight. Take the inland Grizzlies that top out at around 400lbs. Ok, that's fine. 
 
Let's also use the Grizzlies found up in the Alaskan penensula, who range up to 1100lbs.(and I'm not talking about a "one-time" record specimen, these bears regulary top out at that wt.) that's a difference of 700lbs, making the average at 750lbs. 
 
We are talking HARD numbers here, kid. Has thier been 800lb Tigers, I'm sure there may have been, but it's NOT the norm. 
 
We can say on average, that it's a somewhat dubious 500lbs on average for the Tiger, against a solid 700lbs for the Grizzly. 
 
This is a no-brainer for most people, which in retrospect, should make it easier for you, since you have NO brains. 
 
Now, is there anything else you want to say that's even remotely intelligent? 
 
I know it's difficult for you, but give a shot.
Posted @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:57 PM by jcol
Didn't they already have this in real life with the California gold miners? I've read that they used to have animal fights, and the grizzlies would always win. So they got bored and imported some Lions. The Lion would roar and charge, and the Bear would crush their skull with one blow.
Posted @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:09 PM by DSSAD
One other thing, mr. analmalia, the Kamchatka Brown Bear is VERY similar in size to the Grizzly, by most accounts that I've read, and even more to the point, is nowhere near as aggressive as the Grizzly. 
 
You are eally clueless as to how big and how mean the Grizzly is. 
 
 
 
As I've said before, I have all the respect in the world for the Siberian Tiger, it is a magnificent animal. But, when it's pitted against a Grizzly bear, admiration gives way to realism. 
 
The Grizzly is just too much Bear for the cat to handle. 
 
That's just the harsh reality of the situation.
Posted @ Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:01 PM by jcol
Jcol, 
 
sinds we dont know what grizzly, I take the overall average, what is 550. aren't those bears in alaska called kodiaks? anyway. A grizzly is not near the size of a kamchatka! see how much of a fool you are. 550 pound average vs 1000 pound average. And they have bad temper to? Youre grizzly wouldn't stand a chance against a full grown kamchatka, who tiger kill rarly but sometimes. And how is a grizzly to much to handle? a grizzly what is only half the size of the kamchatka would be an easy meal for a tiger. If a siberian tiger saw a grizzly it would consider it to be a small brown bear, and it will kill it. 
 
Tiger advantages: more muscular, better leaper, faster, agile, better armed, stronger, more experience hunting and fighting. 
 
Grizzly advantages: little heavier, more stamina 
 
more then clear who'd win? I dont need any proof, I've got records and video's on my side. Stop lying and actually get real proof!
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:27 AM by mr animalia
i agree with lion man the bear is larger and stronger then the tiger wich comes in affect if the 2 animals fought
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 12:51 PM by wildguy
Mr. animalia, you left 3 advantages for the grizzly. 
 
 
 
Grizzly advantages: stronger, more aggressive, better fighter. 
 
 
 
When a grizzly gets angry, its gonna win against a tiger. A grizzly isnt small either, it averages 3.3 ft at the shoulder. And if you havent noticed the HUGE shoulder muscle on the grizzly or are you just ignoring that?! A grizzly will take home the prize.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 12:54 PM by lion man
When a grizzly gets angry it doesnt fight to get the other animal away, it fights to kill! Tiger dead.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 12:56 PM by lion man
exactly an bear gets extremely mad when another animal crosses its territory or gets to close to its den or meal or its cubs it will get angry and will try and kill it ........the bear wont stop trying to kill it until its dead......so the tiger will die because the bear wont give up until the tiger is dead 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 1:02 PM by wildguy
Lion man, the bear is not stronger, weight isn't always might. the grizzly may be 550 pound compared to a 500 pounds tiger, but most of a bears weight comes from contrast body fat and heavy bones. the tiger is more muscular then the bear. Making it equal in strenght. YES the bear has big shoulder muscle but overall the tiger has a more muscular body, you should no that. And a grizzly only fights when its mad, otherwise it backs down. a tiger will fight anytime and anything. And a grizzly the better fighter? where fid you get that from? tigers and lions are the most skilled fighters. the grizzly is an okey fighter but the tiger is better, and more furios. And last: a tiger is just as fierce as a grizzly. 
 
The advanteges: 
 
Tiger is faster, more agile, better hunter, better fighter, furios, better armed and has experience fighting brown bears. 
 
the bear is only little heavier and more endurance. 
 
Daniel also has huge amount of proof and record, so go and read those first.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:14 PM by mr animalia
mr analmalia, I did not mean to say Kamchatka, but rather the Eastern siberian Brown Bear, which has itself, been compared to the Kamchatka Bear. The Kodiak is a different sub-species, Larger than the Grizzly.  
 
You keep wanting to bring the Grizzly down to the size of the Tiger, but no one with any intelligence believes that to be the case. 
 
I have to laugh at your list of "advantages" that you claim the Tiger has. 
 
More muscular? Sorry, but no. 
 
Stronger? Sorry, but again, no. 
 
Better armed? How do you figure that? Call it a wash. 
 
More experience fighting? 
 
That's the most ridiculous statement you've made so far. 
 
Ok, so Bears don't jump, I'll give you that one. 
 
Brown Bears do not have the temperment that a Grizzly has. The Grizzly is much more aggressive. And yes, Grizzlies fight when they're mad. Are you telling me that Tigers not only fight when they're mad, but when they're happy, too? How about when they're sad? Constipated? 
 
You are a JOKE!! 
 
If a Siberian Tiger saw a Grizzly and thought it was small Brown Bear and tried to kill it, that's gonna be the most surprised Tiger in the world. For about 5 seconds. 
 
Then it'll be dead. 
 
Seriously kid, I've given you all kinds of FACTS, but you don't want any part of it. 
 
You're just sad.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:41 PM by jcol
Mr. animalia, i have no idea who Daniel is number one, and number 2 just because the lions and tigers are amoung the most skilled fighters in the animal kingdom doenst mean that the grizzly bear isnt up there. Watch an angry bear fight and picture what would happen if a lion or tiger got in the middle of it! It would be devastating for the big cat. Cats only have a short burst of energy to do all they can in a fight and try to kill the animal, then they will slow down and take little breaks. A grizzly has amazing stamina and can keep fighting long enough to kill a lion or tiger. Even IF the lion or tiger was stronger, theres no stopping an enragged grizzly! I have herd some experts say that when an angry lion or tiger comes at you, you can get them off not easily but you can. I have never herd an expert say that they can stop an angry bear attack. And its true you cant stop a grizzly when its angry.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:15 PM by lion man
jcol, you have no clue what you are thinking but you are just lying to yourself. You think youre winning, but I have over 15 records (daniels), 4 videos and 8 simple facts on my side. 
 
1. tiger is faster, no explaination needed. 
 
2. tiger is more agile, no explaination needed. 
 
3. tiger is better jumper, no explaination needed. 
 
4. Tiger is more muscular, everyone knows that bears weight comes from heavy sceleton and body fat, while a tiger is pure steel muscle. YES bears do have muscle but pound for pound a tiger is clearly more muscular 
 
5. tiger is not stronger then the bear. but neither is the bear stronger then the tiger. the tiger has more muscle while the bear has more weight. 
 
6. the tiger has a lot more experience fighting brown bears then the bear has fighting tigers. in russia the sometimes meet amur and kamchatka brown bear, those are far larger then grizzlies. and they are known to SOMETHIMES kill them. those subspecies who are 1500 pound would pick up a very good fight, but an 800 pound grizzly? lest get real, that would be an easy meal. 
 
7. both the tiger and the grizzly are aggresive animals. end of this discussion, and aggresive wont help you a lot in a fight. 
 
8. siberian tigers kill a brown bears every time, and like daniel says "they shit them out later". daniel has like 15-20 differ records of tigers killing brown bears, NOT when hibernation, NOT the little ones but full grown males! 
 
How much more can I do to get this sense into the clowns head? Give it up, you lost a long time ago.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:25 PM by Mr Animalia
Oh mr. animalia i have you now! Go to these links and actually READ IT. 
 
 
 
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict10.html 
 
 
 
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html 
 
 
 
Read the whole thing and you know what, i have you beat! Give up grizzlys are dominate over tigers live with it man or your just digging a hole that has no end.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:42 PM by lion man
hey kids, i just read this silly arguement and I came to say this: 
 
back when I was working as zoologist, I have worked with many animals including fierce predetors like wolves, leopards, tigers and bears. They are actually not that 'big evil' most people think they are. Ones you get to know them better they are sort of playfull. But fights may ocur and neither back up. ones back when I was in my late 20 (I'm 44) a non-stop fight happend between a tigress and a male grizzly. while the tigress was around 400 pounds while the grizzly bear was 650 pounds on the dot, they fought for nearly 3 minutes and on the end the grizzly (oscar was his name) died. So even though males are bigger, and stronger. If it's about fighting, you gota get a tigress. I'm sorry Jcol but as in my years of experience in the zoo, a Siberian Tiger would beat a Coastal Grizzly. but I'm also sorry to dissapoint Mr animalia, that it may lose from an Amur Brown Bear. 
 
Chao! ( and R.I.P oscar)
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:46 PM by Dod Micheal
oh no! lion man has 2 link of a site as reliable as himself! To bad daniel has over 15 records and I have 4 video. you should give up lion man, and tell that to your budy jcol as well. 
 
YES dod micheal, a siberian tiger can beat a grizzly, but it will stand a good chance against a kamchatka or amur brown bear as well.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:03 PM by mr animalia
Oh man im not done yet! 
 
 
 
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict9.html 
 
 
 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NuUMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BWoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3660,4412281&hl=en 
 
 
 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_tiger_kill_a_brown_bear 
 
 
 
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wild-Animals-705/largest-big-cat.htm 
 
 
 
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Ussuri_Brown_Bear 
 
 
 
There you go that should be enough for now. Bear wins man just give it up already.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:12 PM by lion man
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Your so funny mr animalia!! NOT! How about those hhmm. I have more then 2 man, alot more! Bear still wins.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:14 PM by lion man
mr analmalia, you don't want to give a "explanation" because you don't have one. 
 
I've already exposed Daniel as being less than honest. The fact is, he got a good part of his info from Wikipedia, and links provided by Wikipedia, but like you, he cherry-picked the stuff he liked, and left out the stuff he didn't. Apparently, you've decided to use him as some kind of expert, but that doesn't surprise me. The fact is, when Siberian Tigers meet large, male Brown Bears, they back off. These Bears usually take a Tiger's kill away from it, and almost always comes out on top in these confrontations. You really have very little knowledge as to how nature works in general, and the interaction between Siberian Tigers and Brown Bears in particular. You also seem to have a problem with comprehension. This, coupled with your inability to accept reality, is further proof that your I.Q. must be extremely low. 
 
I don't speak "moron" very well, but I'll give this another try; 
 
IF a LARGE 500lb Tiger, met a MID-SIZED 550lb Grizzly, it'd be a good fight. Could go either way. 
 
But if a LARGE 500 lb Tiger met a LARGE 700 lb Grizzly, the Tiger would would wind up looking like a bowl of 'Kibbles and Bits'. 
 
An enraged Grizzly will not stop, it is all power and rage. No Tiger, OR Lion, stands a chance. 
 
 
 
Now this has turned into a "no it can't, yes it can", type of debate. 
 
You bring absolutely nothing to the table, so let's just say I'm right and you're wrong, and leave it at that.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:14 PM by jcol
Jcol i have already tried to explain the nature of bears and tigers to mr animalia, hell, we all have! He wont accept the fact that a grizzly will kill a tiger.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:18 PM by lion man
If he would actually READ all the RELIABLE info i have given him then lets see him try to lie his way out of that and avoid the truth.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:21 PM by lion man
lion man, you do realize that all those sites that you are giving me are OPINIONS. you can get a million from the web. but where is the real proof? records? videos? reports? 
 
I can go on wiki answer and answer a question (i've done a couple btw) 
 
I can go and sign up for allexperts and answer quistions in my opinion 
 
I can go and edit wapedia and say that tiger beats grizzly. 
 
I bet there are just as many saying a tiger will kill a grizzly, i have some too. you're just cherrypicking the opinions you want.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:21 PM by Mr animalia
oh yeah accept for google news, congratz, now you only need 17 more to go to be equal with daniel, and 4 videos plz.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:24 PM by mr animalia
dod micheal, ok, so you have first hand knowledge of a tigress killing a large Grizzly, in a zoo. 
 
There are always exceptions to the rule. Are you saying that you believe it would always turn out this way? 
 
From ONE fight? 
 
Sorry, but that proves very little. 
 
what were the circumstances behind the fight? How aggressive were the two animals? How long had each of them been in captivity? Given how aggressive Grizzlies are in the wild, was Oscar anywhere close to this behavior? 
 
aside from all of this, I will assume that you know the average size, or close to it, of Grizzlies that live along coastal areas, as opposed to the avg, wt of the Siberian Tiger. 
 
Given your years working in a zoo, surely you must know that the instinctual (if that's a word) behavior of both animals dictates that the Tiger would back down from a confrontation. 
 
Would you agree with this?
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:38 PM by jcol
lion man, yeah I know. As I've said, talking to animalia is like talking to a brick wall, only the wall is more intelligent. 
 
And has a better personality, too.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:42 PM by jcol
Mr jcol 
 
no, i do not judge both animals on one fight. there have been many small fights, but this is the only one with a death involved. the tigress was born and lived her whole life in the zoo, while the grizzly bear was a little new. Oscar was the one who started this fight, but the tigress finished it. Coastal grizzly may vary from 500-800 pounds, they average 660 lb. the siberian tiger, which is very rare and nearly extinct he may vary from 450-600 lb and average around 500 lb. but in the far east however, some where nearly 800lb, but that is very, very rare. 
 
I would say Siberian tiger versus coastal grizzly bear is a matter of opinion. My personal thinking is not just on that one event, but everything i have read and seen. From National geographic to simple Library books. And Mr animalia, An adult tiger would stand a chance against a Amur Brown Bear, but I believe it will lose, and a tiger that will beat a grizzly bear, well that is my opinion 
 
I will be leaving soon because I was just here to comment, I do not argue with strangers over the web. (dod micheal is a fake name by the way)
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:59 PM by dod micheal
dod micheal, climb off your high horse, son. And yes I can call you son, I'm a bit older than you. 
 
This is not an argument between you and I unless you make it one. 
 
Your opinion is as valid as any intelligent person on the boards. 
 
We reach different conclusions from the same web sites, and that's fine. 
 
 
 
Sometimes, we learn things we didn't know before.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:27 PM by jcol
Apparently many people think that a big fully grown male lion is much stronger than a fully grown male tiger... but is not true, in fact it is the opposite.A lion stands not chance against a tiger as the latter is bigger,stronger and the most importantly he is much more agile.Come on the male lion cannot not even run after its prey conversely to the male tiger.Furthermore the fierce male tigre attack even croco,elephants and many huge predator..
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:57 AM by ludovik
ludovik, that is right, a male tiger is stronger then a male lion. but what these guys here dont get is that a siberian tiger could bear a grizzly bear. 
 
I have many records and videos on my side but they just cant seem to accept it. And I am tired of explaining. 
 
And jcol, if you are really a bit older then dod micheal you would be mature enough to not take this arguement so far. But i'm still a KID REMEMBER??
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:13 AM by mr animalia
This is grizzly bear vs siberian tiger people lets not get off topic to much. But about a lion and tiger fighting, an adult male lion in the wild will win most of the time. Just ask damon, he has TONS and TONS of reliable info about that. Now back on topic. Mr animalia, i dont "cherry pick" my infomation, i give you what i find is reliable and beliveable. Also, who the hell is this daniel character?! I dont care to compete against him since from what jcol has said that he has exposed him as less then honest or whatever. If you can witness the power, strength and size and fighting ability of a grizzly as apose to the siberian tiger, then you can tell which would win and the answer is more then obvious. If your being stubern and cant tell, it would be the grizzly bear all the way.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:51 PM by lion man
My money would be on the tiger. Though the bear can weigh more, most of its weight comes from its large, heavy skeleton and considerable amount of body-fat. By contrast, a tiger's skeleton is quite small given the size of the animal, and its body-fat is minimal - most of its weight comes from its enormous musculature. Tigers have evolved to hunt prey considerably larger than they are - they have to be immensely strong in order to bring down animals like gaur and water buffalo. They are swifter and more agile than bears, with quicker reflexes. They also have much larger canines than bears, and the shortened muzzle and large sagittal crest on the skull gives them more powerful jaws. Not to mention their eighteen razor-sharp claws (bears' claws are non-retractile, and therefore blunt from constant contact with the ground). A large part of the grizzly bear's diet is made up of vegetation, and whilst it does eat meat, it's usually carrion or small or young animals that are easy to catch and kill, meaning they do not require as much strength to kill them as tigers do to kill their prey. In areas where the ranges of the tiger and brown bear (of which the grizzly is a subspecies) overlap, tigers are known to prey upon brown bears.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:30 PM by LeopardsOwn
Qoutes out of the encyclopedia: 
 
 
 
Siberian tigers and brown bears can be competitors and usually avoid confrotation; however, tigers will kill bear cubs and even some adults on occasion. Bears (Asiatic black bears and brown bears) make up 5-8% of the tigers diet in the Russian Far East.[31]. 
 
 
 
THEY KILL & EAT BROWN BEARS. Tigers are solitary animals. They hunt alone. So One Tiger can bring down a BROWN BEAR. A grizzly is just a smaller subspecies. 
 
Tigers may kill such formidable predators as leopards, pythons and even crocodiles on occasion,[42][43][44] although predators typically avoid one another. Tigers have been known to suppress wolf populations in areas where the two species coexist.[45][46] 
 
Crocodiles have alot tougher hide than a BEAR and they are still able to kill them ... 
 
I doubt that a grizzly can even beat a male saltwater crocodile. 
 
And now dont be like lion man and start crying and make things up.  
 
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:55 PM by Mr animalia
yes leopardown!! I agree with you 100 %, but I'm afraid all these bear fans kile jcol and lion man will probably get mad at you for that.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:05 PM by mr animalia
Im not angry at any of you tiger fans. Your just sticking up for the tiger like me and jcol are sticking up for the grizzly bear. Its nothing to flip out over. And if a bear cant take a saltwater croc down then nither can a tiger. I dont even know if either of them could kill a 23ft croc? It would be something interesting to see. It has gone both ways in the wild, bears have killed and eaten tigers and tigers have killed and eaten bears its just the bear is bigger and stronger and would be able to kill and feed on a tiger if it wanted to more then the tiger. There both top predators.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:08 PM by lion man
lion man, finally something I can agree on! they are both top predetors, and at the top of the food chain. The result may vary from the induviduals involved. they are both 'powerfull in there own way'  
 
Maybe we can settle this feud soon, because I'm leaving to bear vs gorilla and tiger vs gorilla because its getting intense in there.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:23 PM by mr animalia
Sometimes, in the effort to back our opinions, we can all get a little crazy. We may disagree on the outcome, but agree that both are top predators. That's fine. 
 
I've said it before, I'll say it again; the Tiger is my favorite animal. So it's not easy for me to say that it would lose to a Grizzly. But I understand that not everyone will agree with that. 
 
A case could be made for both animals. 
 
I choose the Grizzly.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:39 PM by jcol
Okay 
 
I think tiger, you think grizzly. fine, lets end this, its gone beyond discussing. But yeah 
 
grizzly vs gorilla and tiger vs gorrila is where to find me for the next couple of days. 
 
I was getting very tired of this discussion over and over. so after lion vs black bear and tiger vs grizzly I'm moving to gorilla vs grizzly.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:55 PM by mr animalia
Sounds good to me im with grizzly and going to a couple of other fights, but im still gonna visit this link to prove some dumb asses wrong who know anything about how the animal kingdom works.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:59 PM by lion man
I mean im gonna prove the dumb asses who know NOTHING about the animal kingdom wrong and tell them how it works, stuff like that :).
Posted @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:03 PM by lion man
It is not really a question of who win the fight. It is a question of what will the grizzly do with the carcass of the dead tiger after he kills it. I can think of 3 possibilities. 
 
A...the grizzly eats the dead tiger. 
 
B...the grizzly buries the dead tiger.  
 
C...the grizzly simply turns and walks away, quickly forgetting the trivial encounter.  
 
*I will go with C. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:21 PM by Toby Ross
kodiak grizzly and many bears are the biggest animals who eat meats in worldddddddddddddd in land not in the sea and no tiger lion and anything can beat them and the biggest bear is high=4meters wight=900 kilos and long =3 meters
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 3:44 AM by i know it im resercher
You are right Researcher. The term "grizzly" is the common name of Ursus arctos horribulis, a subspecies of Ursus arctos. "Grizzly" is also a common name for any brown bear ( Ursus arctos ). The smallest grizzly could kill the smallest tiger. The biggest grizzly could kill the biggest tiger. Ursus arctos is the apex carnivore. No big cat living or prehistoric could defeat a big grizzly in a face-off.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 6:01 AM by Toby Ross
toby, so you are saying smilodon or american lion could not kill a grizzly? that is just a joke. Daniel & damon has beaten you weeks ago, they proven that both tiger & lion can beat a grizzly. then you left but now you came back because those people left? sad, very sad. 
 
Let me make you happy: a grizzly is so big! he is 20 ft long and 30 ft tall! and he weights 6 ton! it can kill an elephant, mammoth, and a T-Rex in a single blow! Its the king of beast? 
 
happy?
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 7:28 AM by mr animalia
Let us now when your little childish tantrum is over L'il Animalia.  
 
A large grizzly could easily kill a cave lion, an Amewrican lion, or Smilodon. Ursus arctos is the apex carnivore. An African lion, a Siberian tiger, or a Bengal tiger would stand no chance against a grizzly in a face-off.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 7:40 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, i agree with some of your previous points, accept, of course, your statement that the grizzly bear is FAR stronger than the lion or tiger.  
 
People seem to suggest that, because grizzlies can, and indeed sometimes DO get bigger than these biggest of big cats, that they are, on average, stronger. But, this is not the case. Sources do indicate that grizzlies can grow larger on average, but, the data was slightly biased, as it concentrated only upon the weights during spring and fall, which would give biased results. I have have also come to find out the grizzlies of yellowstone np have the richest diet. One study gave an average of 500 - 575 lbs average for spring and fall weights, respectively (track of the grizzly, page 111). However, a more recent study indicated an average, from males weighed THOUGHOUT the year, of 193 kg, certainly within the range of the lion and tiger. 
 
Likewise, in one study, the lion had the largest muscle mass as compared with ANY other mammal included in the study (nearly 60% muscle mass -- compared to 37% average for gorillas). I doubt the grizzly bear is any stronger. 
 
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 8:08 AM by damon
You say that a lion has 60% muscle mass. What is the other 40%? 
 
The grizzly has bigger, heavier, denser bones. Stronger framework. Also, regardless of your muscle mass theory, the grizzly has more muscle than any big cat.  
 
When you consider the combo of bigger stronger bones and more muscle, this is the reason a grizzly with a 6 foot body length is heavier than a tiger with a 6 foot body length.  
 
As I pointed out before, no big cat has the brute strength to dig into hard frozen ground or over turn huge logs and boulders.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 9:12 AM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, i gave no theory concerning the muscle mass of the lion....there is an actual study in proof of it. 
 
Likewise, the bear does not have denser bones than the lion. In one study, which i have likewise shown here, indicates similar density of the bones of the lion and brown bear. In fact, the bones of the lion is enormously dense....perhaps the most dense of the big cats. And, grizzlies do not have more muscle, either. 
 
You are merely guessing (incorrectly, i might add).
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 9:18 AM by damon
There is one population of small grizzly bears. This is due to over hunting by ignorant people. The natural animal, if not for human interferance, would be a much bigger animal. It appears that you wish to concentrate on the smaller bears. In an even match, and yes both the grizzly and the tiger have about the same average body length, the grizzly is the heavier stronger carnivore.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 9:19 AM by Toby Ross
IF you are so confident in your big cats, then why is it you always get upset if someone starts talking about Kodiak bears and other brown bears? As I have stated, the term "grizzly" is often used as a generalized term for any brown bear.  
 
I don't care which tiger subspecies you toss in. In fact, I don't complain if you toss in a lion or a prehistoric cat.  
 
Why not simply compare Ursus arctos against Panthera tigris or Panthera leo?  
 
Ursus arctos at equal body length is stronger that any big cat. Also, I deffinately believe that a gorilla has more upper body strength than a lion. But, regardless of this fact, I believe that a lion could kill a gorilla in perhaps 8 out of 10 fights. 
 
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 9:37 AM by Toby Ross
There is only a marginal size differance between a Siberian tiger or a Bengal tiger and a cave lion or an American lion. So, in your Eiensteinistical opinion, how would any of these big cats do in a face-off against a healthy mature male Kodiak bear?
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 10:05 AM by Toby Ross
OH! I have been watching "Wild Russia" on animal planet. They stated that the brown bear is the ultimate carnivore. Geee! I wonder why they said that? Hmmmmm?
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 10:35 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, did you read my whole post?...If not, read it again. But, tell me though....which population of grizzly bear is larger than the yellowstone grizzly bear?; 
 
"Yellowstone bears had the  
highest dietary meat contribution of all interior populations" 
 
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_1999_hilderbrand001.pdf 
 
And, as other brown bears are not grizzly bears, despite often being claimed as such, i am not including them in my comparison of strength.....though it should be noted that with increases in weight, there is a decrease in 'relative' muscle mass as a greater percentage of body mass is occupied by fat and other bodily organs that grow with size. Simply put, a larger bear would have a proportionately lesser degree of muscle. 
 
I like to compare animals of equal, or near equal mass.....it makes for a more accurate comparison, because of course a brown bear of a much larger mass will be stronger than a lion or tiger....though, not MUCH stronger, and certainly not in terms of the proportion of their mass.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 11:02 AM by damon
Toby, a bear of equal length will not be stronger than a lion or tiger. In fact, i do not think there will be any difference in the strength of these specimens, and, given there are no strength comparisons with which you can stem from, how did you come to such a conclusion? 
 
Also, the cave lion and american lion were at least 30% larger than the lion or tiger of modern times, but, we are talking only about living creatures. In a fight between a lion-tiger, and a brown bear, the bear may have a small chance of winning more often, giving it`s larger size. But, as for the grizzly bear?...Not so. I would bet my money on the lion....though i do have info which suggests the tiger may be the loser on such occasions......from clyde beatty.  
 
But, the data is conflicting on that...so, essentially, im unsure.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 11:11 AM by damon
A 500 pound lion is a very big lion. Bengal tigers and Siberians are often over 600 pounds. American lions were slightly larger. 
 
Remember Anrea the Giant? He was a huge man who, dispite the fact that he never worked out, was stronger than any other wrestler. So, did he have less muscle mass because of his size? Probably. But his bigger frame made him stronger. 
 
As for looking for the average sized tiger or grizzly, this is next to impossible. Especially with different populations of grizzly bears being of different sizes.  
 
So, what was the size of the biggest wild tiger and the biggest grizzly?
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 11:32 AM by Toby Ross
I believe that all this muscle mass percetage business is all about muscle mass in proportion to body size. But, the grizzly has a much bigger frame. 
 
And again, I noticed how you stiffened up when I mentioned "other brown bears".  
 
This leads me to the conclusion that you will agree that Ursus arctos ( as a species ) is the apex carnivore.  
 
You very casually talk about lions and Bengal tigers. But, you always get upset when I mention Eurasian brown bears or Kodiaks. Why? 
 
 
 
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 11:49 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, in scientific documents, the largest siberian was 550 lbs, or 250 kg. The largest bengal was 272 + kg. There are a few hunting records where these specimens have scraped, or even surpassed 600 lbs, but, it is VERY rare. They are not larger than lions. Likewise, the largest siberian on record, in the wild, was about 320 kg, all other figures being unsubstantiated, while a bengal measured 389 kg, or about 857 lbs, though this specimen had feed heavily before being weighed, the night previously. A wild lion was measured at 750 lbs. 
 
Also, the average siberian weighs but a stint (slightly) above 180 kg or so, which is actually smaller than most lion populations.  
 
And, did you mean, andre the giant?...Yes, i remember him. He was strong.....but, that does not mean he was proportionately stronger than the average man/wrestler. The average man, at 150-155 lbs, can deadlift 250 lbs. Andre the giant would need to be able to deadlift roughly 900 to be proportionately equal, in terms of strength, as compared to the average man. I don`t think he could. 
 
And, i don`t just compare one population of tigers, against one population of grizzly. I compare the whole group across many different populations, in terms of average sizes, and strength.  
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 11:58 AM by damon
Toby, i do not get upset when you mention other populations of brown bears. But, what sort of comparison is that?....Is isn`t a fair one. You are comparing specimens which are much larger on average. Not that size is the most important thing in a fight, considering the big cats are the most accomplished fighters of the carnivora family...at least, the lion is, of which i have much data. 
 
A very large brown bear may very well beat a lion or tiger more on average...but, it is not certain. Even cougars (though i don`t know how frequent it is) have managed to get the best of grizzlies, and, however rare it is, it is documented. And indeed, lions have bested brown bears and polar bears in fights.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 12:07 PM by damon
Yes. Andrea the Giant. That was a typo. I did not say that he was proportionately stronger. I said that he was stronger.  
 
So, you are now saying that the lion is the biggest cat? Why is it that your source of information always apposes all other known information. There must be an awful lot of stupid researchers in the field who do not have a link to your info.  
 
If tigers are smaller than lions, grizzly bears can so easily kill them. It is a good thing that brown bears are not actually hunters.  
 
You need to straigten outr all of those naturalists, scientists, and researchers who are claiming that tigers are the biggest cats. The whole world is wrong.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 12:16 PM by Toby Ross
When a grizzly backs away from a cougar or a wolverine, it is because of pure common sense. Wild animals cannot simply walk into the emergency room when they get hurt. Will you reach down a grab a rat? No! Not because you think that the rat can overpower you, but because you do not wish to recieve a rat bite.  
 
Did you really believe that a cougar can defeat a grizzly in a fight? I also believe that a tiger would defeat a lion in perhaps 9 out of 10 fights. Regardless of your ideas, tigers are generally bigger than lions, although lions are taller. Tigers also do alot more killing. They are loners. 
 
But Ursus arctos is the apex carnivore. The big cats are over rated predators. I once saw a python kill a tiger on some old film footage. A python could never overpower a grizzly.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 12:51 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, i have account of cougars actually causing fatal harm to a grizzly bear, though i do believe that usually, the grizzly would most likely win, being much bigger and, in this case much stronger. Well...not much...it`s all relative. 
 
Also, tigers are not bigger than lions...and i have actual PROOF that it is in fact the lion that would usually win in a fight. 
 
And, killing prey is a lot different than killing another predator. The tiger lives alone because, being in the jungle/forest, prey animals are more spread out, and group hunting would quickly deplete the available food source. Likewise, lions accordingly, must provide for an entire pride, and indeed, they usually hunt larger prey. 
 
And, in that vid where the python killed the tiger...it seemed a young specimen, and probably female as well. In the same case, a grizzly bear would get killed. 
 
And, i never stated that tigers were smaller than lions. I believe they are equal in mass....as i`ve stated many times. And indeed, i have every modern peace of data concerning this matter. 
 
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 2:48 PM by damon
Toby Ross; me, lion man and jcol settled this as draw but you just can't accept. 
 
If you say big cats are over rated you are lying to yourself. Python killing tiger was a FILM FOOTAGE. I say a film footage of a croc jumping out of the water and pulling a grizzly in the water, tigers have been known to kill crocs. In a contest on land I doubt a grizzly can kill a large male saltie. 
 
And a lion has 60% of muscle mass, a tiger would be about the same. did you know that guys on steriods have on max a muscle mass of 30%? that means a tiger/lion is twice as muscular then guys who take steriods till there skin can't hold on. Most of a Bears weight comes from heavy bones and contrast body fat. YES bears do have muscle but no nearly as much as a tiger or lion. 
 
You 2 now andre the giant, so I assume you know wwe. John cena, he is packed with muscle and is 240 pounds, despite that he is also quite athletic and is a very talented wresler. Mike Knox on the other side, is 290 pounds but most of that is fat. He is as strong as cena but is not athletic. he has no talent either. Comparing Knox to cena is like comparing grizzly to tiger. And not to talk about the fact that a tiger is better armed and is more agile. 
 
jhon cena beats mike knox, tiger beats grizzly end of discussion.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 4:34 PM by Mr animalia
Oh yeah and one more thing: 
 
daniel showed you a record of a larger brown bear, larger then a coastal grizzly, fleeing from a tigers track! and a tigers track isn't even the tiger itself. And you said a tiger would run and hide, but in siberia where brown bears are bigger then grizzly's its the other way around. Idiot! And some ADULT grizzly bears have been found dead in the ameriaca, killed by cougars. I didn't say a cougar could beat a grizzly, I said it sometimes kills those bears. You are very over estimating a grizzly. Kodiaks, Russian and Polar bears are stronger then a grizzly. 
 
what do you have? records? videos? PROPER back-up?
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 4:51 PM by mr animalia
We just can't seem to let it go, can we? 
 
Mr animalia, please don't use daniel's post of a "Brown Bear running from a Tiger's tracks", without also noting that other Brown Bears FOLLOW those tracks, and more often than not, take a Tiger's kill away from it. It is dishonest to do otherwise. 
 
Damon, it is well known that Grizzlies that live along coastal areas are larger than the Grizzlies in Yellowstone, and in fact, the largest population of Grizzlies are in the coastal areas. 
 
Grizzlies, from the end of the previous hibernation to the beginning of the next, will need to pack on 400lbs or more, just to survive. 
 
The Bone and Muscle density of the Grizzly has evolved from years of digging into hard, sometimes rocky, terrain. Pound for pound, a Tiger or Lion, may be stronger, the problem is that the Bear is, on average, a good 200 lbs heavier/bigger, depending on the time of year. I can't see penalizing the Bear by pitting him against the Tiger, when he's at his lightest. Take each animal at his best and let them rumble. 
 
As for the Tiger/Lion debate, the only thing I'll say about that is the male Lion is a fighter, the male Tiger is a killer. 
 
I'll take the killer.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 5:34 PM by jcol
jcol, the lion is just as efficient as a killer. However, the tiger is slightly more designed for speed, and also lack the conspicuous mane of the lion, which means they are the better lone hunters. 
 
Also, you cannot just compare the weight of the bear from a specific time of the year, as the weight of these specimens varies throughout the months, and an average should be given accordingly. Coastal bears aren`t really grizzlies, but brown bears, which are different.  
 
Also, at equal weights, i think these animals, lb for lb, have an equal percentage of muscle mass. However, if you are comparing a bigger brown bear, than yes, overall, it would have the bigger muscle mass, but not proportionately. And besides, winning a fight isn`t all about size. Fighting prowess, the tactics used, as well as agility and so forth, are important as well.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 5:48 PM by damon
Actually damon, you're wrong. Grizzlies do indeed live along the coastal areas along the northwest territories, as do Brown Bears. These Grizzlies range from 500 to 900 lbs, the average being 700 lbs. 
 
The Brown Bears are even larger. 
 
 
 
 
 
As for the male Lion, they grow too big to become efficent hunters. They don't lose the ability to kill prey, they just don't do it as well as Tigers. They have evolved into protectors of the pride. The mane serves two purposes; it gives them some protection against other males who try to take over the pride, and it's a sign of virility and strength, to attract the females and intimidate other males. 
 
 
 
as for wts, again, pound for pound, it's even money as to who may be stronger. But the Grizzly is larger. If the Tiger, smaller in size, weighed just as much as the Grizzly, then you could make a case for the cat being stronger. Somebody used the late wrestler, Andre the Giant as an example, and was countered with John Cena. These two are excellant examples, as Cena may be, and probably is, pound for pound, stronger than Andre. The problem for Cena is that he's half the size of the Giant. No one in his or her right mind would ever think Cena could have beat the Giant in a straight up, real fight. Andre's mass and overall strength and power, would just be too much for Cena to handle. It would be the same with the Cat and the Bear. 
 
The law of the jungle has always been that the only thing a predator fears, is a larger, stronger predator.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 6:36 PM by jcol
jcol, which study indicates the coastal grizzly weighs from 500 - 900, the average being 700?....i`d like to see it. Also, at which time of the month/s were they weighed? 
 
And no, male lions do not grow too big to become efficient hunters. It is due to the fact they are not quite as built for speed, as are tigers, though they still hunt rather frequently....upwards of 2/rd`s as much as the females, in fact.  
 
And, of course a bear MUCH larger than a lion would win. But, lions too, have been known to beat these specimens, and indeed, there is much more to winning a fight, than pure size alone. Fighting prowess, agility, ferocity, willingness to battle, ect, plays a role as well.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 6:48 PM by damon
Male lions are poor hunters because their mane is like a flag alerting the prey. A male lion seldom if ever kills anything. The coastal grizzly bears are indeed huge. And no healthy mature male grizzly ever lost a face to face encounter with a cougar, a tiger, or a lion if it actually came to a death struggle.  
 
Damon collects data from his secret government ( or alien ) sourse of information while all other sourses are wrong.  
 
But Damon, although I understand your love and admiration for lions, tigers are the biggest cats. And Ursus arctos is the apex carnivore. The lion is only the king in his hot dry arid environment.  
 
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 7:01 PM by Toby Ross
A couple posts back, i came to an agreement with mr animalia and jcol that my decision would be the grizzly, so im gonna stay out of grizzly vs tiger for now. But im gonna talk about the lion vs tiger fight. A lion hunts 50-60% of the time. In recent studies, that is the case. A lion will be willing to fight more and so does fight more then tigers in the wild. A lion also makes more kills then the tiger. A tiger will usually make a kill every 2-4 times out of 20, and a lion will make a kill every 8-9 times out of 20. A lion will be the killer and the fighter and is larger and stronger on average in the wild then a tiger. Plus, the lion has a growth gene that the tiger doesnt. That is why the liger gets much bigger then the tigon, not to mention both parents lion and tiger and alot stronger.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 7:47 PM by lion man
damon, who said anything about a "study"? After looking at various web sites, with wts ranging from 375 lbs to 1150 lbs.  
 
Wikipedia has the range of Grizzlies found in the coastal areas at 500-900 lbs. I know some people don't hold Wikipedia in high regard, but they source thier material pretty well, with footnotes to back it up. And to be sure, almost everyone in this little dust-up has referenced Wikipedia at one time or another. 
 
The wts should be self explainatory; 
 
Bears weigh the least after just coming out of hibernation, the most just before entering hibernation. 
 
As for fighting, I don't think you quite get what survival in the wild really entails. Most animals, Bears, Tigers, sharks, etc, usually avoid conflict, with the notable exception of females protecting thier young. When a fight does happen, it's usually after the two combatants have sized each other up, with no discernable difference in size between the two. Dispute over territory and food usually ends before it starts with the smaller/weaker animal backing down. The only exceptions are animals that live in a pack or group setting, where males feel compelled, by instinctual behavior, to take over the pack or pride. Lions don't fight because they have to, they fight because they have no choice. Same with Hippos and any number of animals, in that type of structure. Even then, the fighting usually only takes place only during mating season or a take-over attempt. Most other squabbles are decided with posturing and signals within the pack/pride or whatever you want to call it. 
 
Size is first and foremost, the deciding factor on if a fight even takes place at all. 
 
A good big man almost always beats a good little man, and that same adage applies to animals as well.
Posted @ Friday, February 05, 2010 8:08 PM by jcol
Jcol, its silly we are comparing wrestlers to animals but note this: 
 
cena is 240 pounds, André was 540. that means andre was 2.25x as heavy, there is not that much difference. Mike knox - cena or JBL - cena that is a good comparison. because that is about as much size difference as there is between a grizzly and tiger. Still cena can beat both knox and jbl. for the same reason as tiger beats grizzly: he's more talented, muscular and fast. Tigers are also like cena faster, more muscle mass and they are natural born killers. A grizzly is not a fighter, 90% of its diet is vegie, and they hunt very rarely. And a tiger is better armed with razor sharp claws and large shark tooth. A grizzlies claws can be slightly longer but are not as sharp and it's tooth are small compared to the tiger. 
 
A tiger is fast AND strong, that is a combo not many animals have. And toby ross, stop saying the grizzly is an apex predator, it's not, okey? Of all the bears there is only one true predator, and it lives on the Arctic. The polar bear is a real top predator, but the siberian tiger is the ultimate predator. Hands down.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 12:06 AM by Mr animalia
Toby, i have records where lions have defeated brown bears, and even polar bears, in face to face encounters, and, unless otherwise stated, you cannot say for certain whether one animal or the other were in bad condition. 
 
And, never did i say all other sources were wrong. However, most are furnished around 'estimates', or best guesses. And, some have no reliability at all. 
 
I also have records indicating the lion would be the usual winners. Tigers are also no bigger than lions. And, the apex carnivore is the lion......the most combative of the carnivora family.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 2:10 AM by damon
jcol...so, that`s where you got your info......various websites. And yes, some people, including me, do not hold high regard as per wikipedia. Why?...because it can be edited by anyone....and of course, most websites merely report well known estimates upon an animal`s size, rather than actual figures. Find some actual 'sources', or actual documentation, which indicates the coastal grizzly averages what you claim it does. 
 
And, isn`t fighting because you have no choice is the same as fighting because you have to?.... 
 
But, i also have records of lions defeating brown bears, and of course, grizzlies are no larger than lions or tigers. Besides, you cannot merely compare one population of grizzly, especially of one where you lack the data to accurately provide a clear indication of the average body mass of these specimens.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 2:18 AM by damon
damon, EVERY website I know of has the same info that Bears that live in coastal regions grow larger than Bears that reside inland, due mainly to diet. That is an undisputed fact. I could care less what anyone may think about Wikipedia, they reference with links to "actual sources" and "documentation" of the info you want or need, and you know this. This includes every aspect of whatever animal you may want to look up. If you choose not to believe it, that's more an indication of your own bias than of anything else. The fact is, thru Wiki, you can find the data you need that has "accurately provided a clear indication of the average body mass", of both the Cat and the Bear. Use the footnotes. 
 
Again, most animals will avoid fighting if they can, especially against a larger, stronger predator. Instinct tells them to back away. Lions, if they want to further thier line, need to take over a pride of females. They HAVE to fight to do that. And some have NO CHOICE, because nature tells them it's time. 
 
No one is saying that a large Tiger or Lion can't kill a Brown Bear or Grizzly, but the odds are against it happening. And I think you know this.  
 
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 6:23 AM by jcol
jcol, despite the fact that most animals avoid a fight, it nonetheless takes little accord for a lion to start fighting. And, i`ve been looking at wikipedia for years....they most usually link to other similar websites, that can be created by anyone, with no reliable data to back up the statements.  
 
Indeed, can you show me one of those links which confirms the measurements of those coastal grizzlies?....I don`t doubt they aren`t bigger than inland grizzlies, but still, you lack the data to prove it. 
 
And, lions have been known to confront potential rivals when the odds were 3 to one, and indeed, they have higher testosterone levels as compared to grizzly bears, so likewise they would be more aggressive/ferocious.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 6:35 AM by damon
Damon. There was a Mexican grizzly in Old California that killed lion after lion as well as tigers. But, these arranged pit fights are no proof of anything. We do not know anything of the health of these animals or what these terrible people did to them. The only fights that count are those that take place in the wild.  
 
I say that the big cats are the apex predators ( except where the polar bear lives ) and Ursus arctos is the apex carnivore because no big cat is a match for his strength.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 6:36 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, there is no proof those fights even existed, other than from second hand sources, and even those are shaky. I find it hard to believe the grizzlies won....unless they were like over twice the size, in which case i would most certainly put my money on the bear. 
 
And, if the brown bear is larger, than yes, i don`t doubt he`d be stronger. But, what about a specimen of equal mass?....
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 6:42 AM by damon
Those fights took place and recorded. But, like I said, these fights and your you-tube fights don't count here.  
 
You miss the point. Not equal mass Damon. Let's go with equal body length. The grizzly will be taller because he has longer legs and a more massive body. He will be heavier because he is more massively built.  
 
This is my point. At equal body length, we have a completely fair fight. If one is more powerful, it is because he is of the more powerful species.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 7:24 AM by Toby Ross
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict10.html
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 7:53 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, those fights were CLAIMED to have taken place....with no verifiable data which i was able to find. And, who said anything about youtube fights? Certainly i didn`t. I have actual, written documents in proof of my points.  
 
Most videos are inconclusive.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 8:42 AM by damon
YES Damon, documented records were kept of the arena fights in Old California. I read them myself, as they were onced published. But, I do not know why you go on and on about this.  
 
I don't give a rats ass about your documented proof, as you refuse to accept anyone elses. And I find it hard to believe that a lion fought a polar bear in the wild.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 8:55 AM by Toby Ross
Bear wins in a head on fight. The largest cat of any kind would be a 1000lb cat named Hercules and he is a liger. NOT wild.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 10:38 AM by Ricky-Bobby
The Mexican grizzly was smaller than grizzly bears of the North. Never-the-less, a Mexican grizzly was recorded as having killed numerous bulls, several wild boars, and several lions.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 11:06 AM by Toby Ross
Ive herd about that animal fighting in california and even know im not sure this weight of the mexican grizzly bear is acurrate (556lbs) since i only herd from a friend. But the mexican grizzly was on of the most aggressive animals in the world. And yes lions have fought other lions against the odds, 1 lion vs 4 lions, all being healthy adult males and the 1 lion won. But like ive said before, you CANNOT STOP an enragged grizzly bear, no other animal is known to get so enragged. It is not really known for sure except for the way they live in the wild.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 11:57 AM by lion man
You might be very well right about the lion/tiger fight. I was going with the info I could find. I have seen a few cat fights ( tom cats ). A bloody mess when it's over.  
 
If you scroll up to Feb 6th, 7:53am you can link onto a site that gives a little info on the Old California fights. I can remember seeing a Mexican grizzly on Wild Kingdom back in the 1960s. A jaguar was drinking from a water hole. The grizzly lumbered down toward the water and the jaguar ran from it.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 12:07 PM by Toby Ross
Damon. At the lion vs tiger page, you stated that there is a lot more involved in a fight than size and strength. This is true. But when the strength difference is overwhelming, the strongest is very likely to win the fight.  
 
The tiger is an athlete built for stealth, speed, agility, and jumping ability. The tiger is a strong athlete, but the grizzly is a brute with endurance. If the tiger cannot kill the bear within the first minute of the fight, then the fight is over and the stronger grizzly makes an easy kill.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:06 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, the grizzly may very well be able to defeat a tiger......but, most of my argument has centered around the lion, as i had just recently found some data that indicates the tiger may be the usual loser in a fight with a bear.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:13 PM by damon
Probably the biggest reason that a lion will often win a fight against a tiger is the lion's mane. Big cats kill with a strangling bite to the throat. If the tiger gets his jaws around the throat of the lion, he recieves a mouth full of hair.  
 
This will not work against a grizzly. The grizzly will be hitting the lion with sledge-hammer blows from huge paws, each armed with 5 long claws. The bear will use it's weight to maul over the lion and rip and tear with it's powerful jaws. The lion will find himself overwhelmed by the brute force of the grizzly. Cats are by far the better hunters. The grizzly is the better fighter. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:29 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, i recently compared a tiger and grizzly bear of equal, or near equal length...(which you saw) and, guess what?....the bear was not heavier. And, i`ve never seen any land carnivora with the aggression of the lion, and indeed lions have a higher testosterone level.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:29 PM by damon
Toby, though the mane does protect the neck of the lion, it`s main defense is more psychological than real. The mane offers an intimidating factor....likewise, the lion is naturally a more confident animal. Though, as i`ve said, the mane does offer protection. 
 
When a tiger should attempt a neck bite, he may, in certain instances, misjudge the distance, and, instead of biting the neck, as intended, gets a mouthful of mane. The mane may also snag his claws, preventing an effective attack on his part.  
 
The tiger also seems to use up a great deal of his energies, early on in the fight, and soon tires quickly. This is not a guess...indeed, it has been documented via eyewitnesses. 
 
However, a grizzly bear is not stronger than a lion, and there is no strength tests in proof of this.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:39 PM by damon
No there are TONS of animal experts just saying that the bears are the largest and most powerful carnivore in the world today for fun right?!
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:55 PM by lion man
Damon. When you sit in a restaurant to eat fried chicken, do you ask for documented proof that the dead bird in your plate is indeed chicken? Use a little common sense. Look at a grizzly. Stop long enough to feel the vibrations. You can feel the energies. The grizzly is radiating with raw animal power. The lion or tiger is a champion athlete. The grizzly is more like the Frankenstein monster. Pure brute force. It is impossible to have such power and still be the quick and nimble jumper that the big cat is. A lion has musacular shoulders. But, put down your notebook and look at the shoulders of the grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 2:37 PM by Toby Ross
Toby ross,you say you cant have both power and speed huh? well look at wrestler john cena. he was quick and talented, but still has the power to lift both edge and big show (700 pounds) at the same time on his shoulders! the tiger is like cena he has power, speed and is a natural born killer. And just the shoulders of the grizzly doesn't say ANYTHING. You should now that pound for pound a tiger is more muscular. About 60% of a lion/tigers weight comes from muscle mass! My estimate is the bear has about 30%. A grizzly has no brutal strenght, it's strong but pound for pound the tiger is more muscle, faster, more agile, better hunter and fighter, and better armed. accept for weight and endurance there is no other advantage for the bear.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 3:08 PM by mr animalia
We all know that WWE wrestling is fake. But, if you were to put John Cena ( tiger ) against Mark Henry ( grizzly ) in a real match, Mark Henry would win.  
 
A Kodiak bear could defeat the polar bear. Any Ursus arctos could defeat a lion or a tiger. And yes, strength is an advantage of the grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 3:31 PM by Toby Ross
So damon, let me see if I get this straight; you say you don't doubt that Grizzlies living in the coastal areas are larger than those living inland, but you want me to provide an actual study that says as much, by a source that you approve of? 
 
Hmmmmmm. 
 
If you already believe it to be so, exactly what would be the point of this? 
 
The Tiger Vs. Grizzly debate is basically over, am I to believe, from reading your last few posts, that you feel the Lion could take on the Grizzly and do better? 
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 5:28 PM by jcol
Here in Rusia, where both Amur brown bear and Amur tiger live, tigers do sometimes kill Big male brown bears during summer season!
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 6:45 PM by Vlademir kogstave
mr animalia, you do know that Wrestling is fake, right? There is no way to know who would win in a real fight between Cena and Mike Knox, whoever he is, unless they actually have a real fight. 
 
However, in the spirit of competition, if you're gonna use John Cena to represent the Tiger, then the Grizzly should be represented by Bill Goldberg. 
 
I think that's closer to what a Grizzly is like, as compared to Mike Knox, whoever he is. 
 
You seriously underestimate the strength of the Grizzly, and when enraged, there is no animal that can match the bear in pure savagery. They are relentless. And when a Grizzly is satisfied that the threat has been neutrelized, he will turn his back to it, in the ultimate show of dominance. 
 
Of course, by that time, the threat, be it another Bear, big Cat, Man or whatever, is usually in no shape to anything about it. 
 
The kicker is that the Grizzly may not be through. Out of spitefull rage, it may attack again. 
 
THAT, mr animalia, is the nature of the Grizzly Bear.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 7:07 PM by jcol
I said Mark Henry, but Bill Goldberg will do. My point being, the tiger is an athlete. The grizzly is a weight-lifter in the heavyweight division. The tiger is like Robin Hood or Zorro. The grizzly is like Hercules or Samson. Well, you get the point.  
 
In reality, the tiger will stand no chance at all against an enraged grizzly. Regardless of how my posts sound, I have a high respect for the big cats. They are the greatest terestrial predators on earth. But, the omnivorous carnivores Ursus arctos are the apex carnivores. No big cat can defeat a grizzly in a face-off. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 8:36 PM by Toby Ross
i agree with you toby tigers stand no chance. in fact if you guys dont belive mr. there is a show called animal face off. it is a animated fight but experts choose who would win between a tiger and a grizzly. they voted grizzly. you can see it on youtube.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 10:53 PM by east95
mr animalia the muscle mass for a grizzly is 50% not 30%. so a tiger of about 60% is not much of a differance
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 11:00 PM by east95
A grizzly bear even if it is 50% muscle, that muscle is heavier then the tigers. Its a bear come on, there brute strength and pure power they can kill a moose with one blow. A lion or tiger has to work its way around an animal to get its neck.
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 11:11 PM by lion man
East 95, I know a brown bear beat a tiger at animal face off 
 
but that bear was huge 10 ft 1500 pounds that was an Ussuri brown bear, go look on wiki. those bears are huge. the size of a polar/kodiak bear. It's possible for a tiger to lose from a bear that big but a 700 pound grizzly? let's get real. Animal discovery also said a lion could beat a 10 ft 1500 pound brown bear. 
 
ANd comparing a grizzly to mark henry is wrong, boxers are not weight lifters. and mark henry is 400 pounds while cena is 240, there is not that much difference between are grizzly and tiger, even there you (toby) are lacking on knowledge. cena is like a tiger, power and speed in a combo. And I do not know how muscular a grizzly is but 50% seems way to much, 30% of a grizzly is fat so it only has 20% left for blood, water and sceleton? I doubt it. 30% seems logic. 
 
These are FACTS about 850 pound tiger vs 1000 pound grizzly, there are 7 factors that will decide: Speed, Agile, strength, endurance, experiance in the wild, and better fighter & hunter. 
 
Now, speed goes to the tiger, 50 mph vs 35 mph. Agile does also go to the tiger. strength is about equal while the tiger is lighter it is also more muscular while most of a bears weight comes from contrast fat and heavy sceleton. endurance is one thing I can give to the bear. tigers have more experience fighting brown bears in the wild then grizzlies have fighting tigers. The tiger is also alot better hunter & fighter, while a grizzly hunts likeones every 2 weeks a tiger hunts, fights and kills daily. 
 
TIGER WINS!
Posted @ Saturday, February 06, 2010 11:49 PM by MR animalia
and toby you say you respect big cats? 
 
in bear vs bull and kodiak vs polar bear you where talking about how easy a brown bear can beat a tiger, even though a tiger had nothing to do whith that fight. you call that respect? every where I read youre comments you always talk about how great the grizzly is. you are very over estimating the grizzly. Kamchatka and amur brown bear are far stonger bears then a grizzly and tigers still kill them. 
 
you're a freakin bear lover/big cat hater that is jealous because of the tigers succes and that it is the ultimate most fearless predator.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 12:02 AM by Mr animalia
MrAnimalia. I was not refering to Mark Henry's weight, but his strength. A grizzly is a weight lifter. They are developed for overturning huge logs ands boulders. They dig into hard frozen ground.  
 
And, yes I do respect the apex predators...the big cats. Oh yes! I never said that the grizzly is the apex predator. I said that Ursus arctos is the apex carnivore. As in carnivora, an order of mammals. The grizzly is just too powerful for a lion or a tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 5:30 AM by Toby Ross
Some of you guys like to talk about the ferocious attack of a tiger. This is nothing compared to the attack of an enraged grizzly. If a tiger was to see a mad grizzly charging towards him, the tiger would first be frozen to the spot with fear, as he looses tiger droppings. Then, if he can compose himself, the tiger will run. This is when a tiger can be clocked at 50mph.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 5:51 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, a tiger is not going to freeze with fear in the face of a grizzly, though i do believe the bear may win on average. But, this is only lightly supported, and certainly not due to his strength, which is no greater than that of the tiger`s. A tiger has gotten the best of brown bears, both in the wild, and in captivity, and vice versa. The grizzly would most certainly lose to the lion, however. 
 
Likewise, lions don`t usually kill other predators with a throat bite, but usually by attacking such vulnerable areas as the lower back/spinal column of their adversary, and the hindlimbs as well.  
 
Also, check this out (read the whole thing); 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/sreply/1415/t/experts-opinions-lions-vs-tigers-.html
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 6:04 AM by damon
mr animalia, I have to say this; 
 
you don't have a friggin' clue as to what you're talking about, but it's a lot of fun reading your posts. 
 
You do make me laugh.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 6:27 AM by jcol
MrAnimalia. Just because I happen to know that a grizzly can overpower a lion or a tiger does not mean that I have no love or respect for the big cats. My favorite animal is the gorilla. Yet, I agree that a grizzly, a lion, a Bengal tiger, or a Siberian tiger can kill a bull gorilla. This is not about defending our favorite animals.  
 
Damon. I read your articles and found them very interesting. I seldom add that grizzly bears are not only stronger than lions and tigers, more endurance, but also smarter.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:41 AM by Toby Ross
MrAnimalia. You are right. There are bigger and stronger bears among the Ursus arctos species than the American grizzly. As a whole, Ursus arctos is the apex carnivore.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:45 AM by Toby Ross
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/bears/19332  
 
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/artic-bears/bear-intelligence/779/
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 8:58 AM by Toby Ross
Damon, that link you put out is great documents! And toby your links are also great! Lions may be called the king of beasts, but i wouldnt doubt that the lion would have to share that with the brown bears.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 11:58 AM by lion man
Im not choosing favorites either. There both powerful hunters and amazing fighters, but it is a FACT that brown bears are bigger and stronger then the big cats. Bears are the largest and most powerful predators on earth.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 12:01 PM by lion man
Heres a video document about a grizzly killing an african lion. 
 
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b07Rd99o7Uc&feature=related 
 
 
 
I know its only 1 document but it still matters so please dont bitch about it anyone.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 12:28 PM by lion man
Sorry that I missed this. My computer isn't accepting videos right now. Not sure why. I'm no computer geek.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 12:58 PM by Toby Ross
Isn't it funny Lion Man, how all of these people trying to defend the big cats, so calmly talk about lions, Bengal tigers, as well as the Siberian tiger. But, they seem to insist that we stick with the smaller population of American grizzly bears.  
 
The coastal grizzlys are very commonly 1,000+ pounds. And if we toss in any/all members of Ursus arctos ( as they toss in just any big cat ) then we can really call in the big boys from 1500 to 2000 pounds. But, we'll play nice. Send your 500 or 600 pound lion or tiger to face a 1,000 grizzly. Our bears are hungry ( smile ). 
 
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:15 PM by Toby Ross
Toby Ross, this is what I've been trying to get across to damon. The fact is, the Grizzly and the Brown Bear are the same species. The coastal Grizzlies grow larger, by almost 40%, than inland Grizzlies. 
 
This is from "Ursus International Conservation Institute"; 
 
 
 
"A grizzly bear boar may weight 700lbs, averaging perhaps 350-500lbs, while a healthy, mature adult male would not generally be much lower than 350-400lbs. A large sow could weigh 500lbs, though mature females might average between 300-400lbs. By comparison, an Alaskan coastal grizzly bear boar could weigh between 800-1200 pounds, and a female could range between 600-800lbs. Male Kodiak bears can weigh as much as 2000lbs, though an average weight for mature animals would be between 1200-1500lbs. A female Kodiak might weigh 1000lbs, though an average adult weight might be around 700lbs." 
 
 
 
This is just one of MANY websites that essentially say the same thing, with only slight variations in weight. 
 
Are you reading this, damon?
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:08 PM by jcol
from "Grizzlybay.org"; 
 
 
 
"Genetically the inland grizzly bear and the coastal grizzly bear are the exact same species. However, there are many differences in their diet and this has a profound effect on their behavior. Food, especially meat, is scarce for inland grizzlies and nearly 95% of their diet is of the plant form. Coastal grizzlies on the other hand have access to highly nutritious salmon, clams, and sedge grass. This difference in diet has several effects. Coastal grizzlies tend to be much larger than inland grizzlies. Secondly, inland grizzlies tend to have larger "personal spaces" than do coastal grizzlies because food is more scarce and therefore they require a larger area to roam for food sources. Third, all of the highly nutritious foods on the coast (salmon, clams, sedge, etc) require the bears to congregate and feed together. Unlike coastal bears, inland grizzlies almost never congregate in large numbers. By feeding in close proximity to large numbers of other bears on a regular basis, coastal grizzlies have developed more social skills." 
 
 
 
While it's true that no weights are given on this site, it is noted that the size difference is significant. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:15 PM by jcol
jcol, yes, i`ve read it. However, it is merely a peace of inaccurate data from some little known website. I have quite a bit of data concerning the mass of alaskan brown bears (which are not grizzlies, by the way) and, the figures mentioned here are the upper limit of these specimens. By that same token, lions too, can reach 700 lbs.  
 
But, notice that the 'average' weights for the grizzly you mentioned (even though that too, is a bit inaccurate) is less than the 700 lbs you claimed they averaged.  
 
The heaviest population of brown bears actually averaged 389 kg. But, the data was biased, as it was age specimen (meaning it included bears of a specific age group...namely, those over 9 years of age) and also limited in sample size. It is scarcely reliable.  
 
But, like i said, we are talking about grizzlies, and, though grizzlies too, are brown bears, all brown bears aren`t grizzlies.  
 
A re you reading this, jcol?
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:22 PM by damon
And this from the "Alaska Department of Fish and Game"; 
 
 
 
"General description: Brown and grizzly bears are classified as the same species even though there are notable differences between them. Kodiak bears (brown bears from the Kodiak Archipelago) are classified as a distinct subspecies (U. a. middendorffi) from those on the mainland (U. a. horribilis) because they have been isolated from other bears since the last ice age about 12,000 years ago. “Brown bears” typically live along the southern coast of the state where they have access to seasonally abundant spawning salmon. The coastal areas also provide a rich array of vegetation they can use as food as well as a milder climate. This allows them to grow larger and live in higher densities than their “grizzly” cousins in the northern and interior parts of the state. To minimize confusion, this report uses the term “brown bear” to refer to all members of Ursus arctos.  
 
 
 
The brown bear resembles its close relatives the black bear (U. americanus) and the polar bear (U. maritimus). Brown bears are usually larger than black bears, have a more prominent shoulder hump, less prominent ears, and longer, straighter claws. Polar bears are similar in size to coastal brown bears, but are more streamlined, lacking the hump. The varying shapes of these bears are adaptations to their particular life styles. Long claws are useful in digging roots or excavating small mammals, but are not efficient for climbing trees. The musculature and bone structure of the hump are adaptations for digging and for attaining bursts of speed necessary for capture of moose or caribou. Color is not a reliable key in differentiating these bears because black and brown bears have many color phases and polar bears may have stained fur. For example, black bear fur may be black, brown, reddish or even shades of grey and white, while brown bear colors range from dark brown through very light blond.  
 
 
 
Brown bear weights vary by age, gender, location, and time of year. Bears weigh about one pound (0.5 kg) at birth and attain adult size by age 6. Adult males tend to be 30-50% larger than females. A large male may weigh up to 1,500 lbs (680 kg) in coastal areas or up to 500 lbs (227 kg) in interior areas. Bears weigh the least when they emerge from their dens in the spring, and can increase their weight by over 50% during late summer and fall. The largest brown bear ever killed had a skull that was 17.9” (46 cm) and 12.8” wide (33 cm). Such a bear, when standing on its hind feet, would be over 10’ (3.0 m) tall." 
 
 
 
There are many more sites, but really, how much more proof does one need? 
 
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:23 PM by jcol
So damon, if the website gives info that you don't agree with, it is "inaccurate data", from a "little known web-site"? 
 
That's pathetic and childish. 
 
Gosh, to think they use a group of Mature Bears to study, when they could use undersized, younger Bears. 
 
 
 
How dare they do such a thing.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:30 PM by jcol
and damon, go back and re-read the info from U.I.C.I; it clearly states that "Alaskan Coastal Grizzlies can reach weights between 800-1200 lbs." 
 
That was "Alaskan Coastal Grizzlies". 
 
What part of that did you not understand?
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:36 PM by jcol
jcol, it is not that i disagree with those records. However, in this case....i KNOW they are not accurate, as i have actual data, from scientists in the field, and the figures were rather different. I almost never get any info from websites and such, unless the data has been shown to be accurately proven. 
 
For example, i`ve seen a website say that lions average 580 lbs. I know for a fact that isn`t true, as i have every modern document on the subject. Yet, the website gives that number, nonetheless.  
 
And, i understand the part about the alaskan coastal grizzlies....however, i didn`t really read that part all the way through, as i`m a little busy.  
 
Likewise, majority of those sources you mentioned, gave no average weights. Merely stated those bears can/may weigh up to this and that amount. Lions can grow to extreme weights as well.  
 
But, i`ll show you what i mean by accurate data; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/39
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:01 PM by damon
Let me ones again list the advantages of Grizzly bear vs siberian tiger: 
 
Speed: tiger 
 
Endurance: grizzly 
 
Agile: tiger 
 
Strength: equal 
 
Better Armed: tiger 
 
Better fighter: tiger 
 
Furios: equal 
 
Denser bones: grizzly 
 
More muscular body: tiger 
 
Weight: grizzly  
 
More experience hunting: tiger 
 
More then clear who would win? for everyone who thinks a tiger is not strong you are an idiot, it must be a powertank to take down animals like gaur, rhino and even elephant. And now don't come and cry 'tigers don't hunt elephant and rhinos' because they do. And I am aloud to use bengal tigers, sinds toby and jcol have used russian, grizzly and coastal brown bears in their comments. 
 
Very over rated grizzly bear. LIONS, TIGERS, RUSSIAN BEAR, KODIAK, POLAR BEAR, GAUR, SALTWATER CROC, RHINO, HIPPO, GIRAFFE, ELEPHANT all those animals can beat a grizzly on land. the grizzly is no more then an average brown bear, some bears are only 120 pounds while others are 1500 pounds, a grizzly's max size falls right in between, 800 pounds. 
 
And toby you should now that 1000 pounds is very very rare for a grizzly, even 700 pounds is more then average. there realy average is 550 pounds, no more no less. there are some sites who say a grizzly only averages 350-500 pounds. I'm using 550 to be genarous. 
 
you two (jcol & toby) do not have any proof at all, daniels records are the truth.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:12 PM by mr animalia
damon, I went to the site, and first let me make sure it was the correct place; "tigers vs. lions accounts"? was that the right place? 
 
If so, I have to say that I have no idea what this proves. It seemed to be nothing more than a collection of stories, some of which I have no idea as to how true they may be, along with simple statements of "opinions" of various people, dealing with confrontations between Tigers and Lions. With absolutely nothing to support thier position. I didn't see any reports as to the size and or age of the cats, although I admit to not reading ALL of the stories or entries. Was I at the right site? Because frankly, I don't see the relevance. What exactly does this have to do with Grizzly vs. Tiger?
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:33 PM by jcol
damon, I'm just trying to point out that coastal Grizzlies are larger than inland Grizzlies, and the average wt is around 700 lbs. 
 
Now I don't know that for a fact, but from the wt range given for the coastal Bears, that seems to be a fair wt, especially when you consider that the Bear gets heavier as the days pass by.
Posted @ Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:44 PM by jcol
Coastal grizzlys range from 800 to 1200 pounds. 1,000 pound boars are common. 600 pound tigers are not so common, but I am willing for your 600 pound tiger to challenge my 1,000 pound grizzly.  
 
Damon has admitted that a grizzly will usually win against a tiger. But ( mysteriously ) he believes that a 500 pound lion can defeat a 1,000 pound coastal grizzly.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 5:14 AM by Toby Ross
MrAnimalia. The strength of a lion or a tiger does not come close to the strength of a grizzly. The cats body is designed for speed and agility and for the purpose of long jumps and high jumps. The grizzly is a weight-lifter. He is designed for overturning heavy logs and boulders. He is designed for digging into concrete-hard frozen ground. No big cat has he muscle to do what a grizzly can do.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 5:19 AM by Toby Ross
jcol, no, the link i showed was concerning the sizes of bear species, so i guess you did not look at it. 
 
But, those lion vs tiger accounts are indeed reliable.....as i have mentioned the source for most of them. 
 
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 7:21 AM by damon
Toby ross, so you think it doesn't take any power to take down a gaur, elephant or rhino? you should try it your self. a grizzly would not come near those animals. A grizzly cannot take down a rhino because it is not strong enough. A grizzly is made to eat vegie, berries, insects, rodents, mammals. they hunt a big animal such as an elk like ones a month. A tiger is bad attitute brawler, destroyer, natural born killer it kills animals a lone bear would not come near to, elephants, gaur, rhino. I ones saw a documentary of a tiger stealing a crocodiles prey in the water! a grizzly would never have the guts to do that. 
 
And a coastal grizzly ranges from 500-900 pounds and there average is less then 700, 660 pounds. Now ask youre self this: if a Bengal tiger sometimes kill elephant, how much trouble can a siberian tiger have against a 660 pound grizzly?  
 
Daniel has so many different records of tiger, and you still think a smaller grizzly can beat it. Panthera onca will always kill ursus actors, eat it, and shit it out later. Go get me records, toby!
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 7:30 AM by mr animalia
ha ha ha ha ha! MrAnimalia still has his tiger killing elephants and rhinos. Lions, Siberian tigers, and Bengal tigers average in the 500 pound range. Coastal grizzly bears range from 800 to 1200 pounds. So, we are looking at a 600 pound tiger ( giving you a few extra pounds ) versus a 1,000 pound grizzly.  
 
Also, I might add, a grizzly would have no trouble taking down a gaur. To the grizzly, it's just another bull. Neither tiger nor grizzly is going to be stupid enough to attack a healthy full grown rhrinoceras. As for tigers preying on full grown bull elehants...ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 7:41 AM by Toby Ross
I read that artcle about the tiger killing the mother elephant. This was a one-time event. Tigers sometimes prey on baby elephants. Even this is rare. The mother tried to protect her calf. The tiger managed to get a strangle hold on the small female elephant. 
 
The big cats kill by strangulation. They hold on with their "meat-hook" claws and strangle their prey. Strength has very little to do with the way a cat kills. They mostly depend on their weight to drag the animal down as the cat gets a grip on the throat. A grizzly is a mauler, using it's brute strength to overpower it's victom.  
 
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 7:54 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, i do not believe a 500 lb lion would defeat a 1000 lb bear. When did i say that?.....No population of bear average over 1000 lbs, and of course, lions average 420 lbs. Why mention over-large specimens? 
 
And, the strength of a lion or tiger is equal to that of a grizzly bear.  
 
But, i also have a link concerning the average body mass of grizzly bear populations; 
 
http://www.yellowstone-natl-park.com/grizzlybear.pdf 
 
These populations were actually weighed, and the average of ALL the populations, was 486.4 lbs. So, rounded off, this is 490 lbs....certainly within the range of lions and tigers. So, there is a difference of roughly 70 lbs.....hardly worth mentioning, and indeed, some populations were smaller than the corresponding lion populations.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 7:59 AM by damon
Damon. It is impossible to get an accurate average weight unless you actually weigh every adult male tiger, lion, and grizzly. But, those coastal grizzly bears are huge. 1,000 pound grizzly bears of that area are not uncommon. And, I have decided to stick with the coastal bears as MrAnimalia insists on going with the Bengal tiger rather than the Siberian. In fact, by all rights, I could go with the Kodiak. At least I am sticking with the same subspecies, just a particlar location group. So, how will your lion do against a coastal grizzly?
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 8:16 AM by Toby Ross
I will admit though, a full-sized adult healthy male lion or tiger might win about 5 out of 10 times against an inland grizzly. These bears range in size from 350 pounds to 600 pounds. Roughly an average of about 400 pounds.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 8:21 AM by Toby Ross
Damon / Lion Man / MrAnimalia. Go to this site and read all. If MrAnimalia says that a tiger can defeat a coastal grizzly bear, then it is not because he really believes it. It is because MrAnimalia wants to be the winner, regardless of the truth.  
 
http://www.katmaibears.com/ursusarctos.htm  
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 8:44 AM by Toby Ross
Sorry guys. That didn't work. I am not a computer geek. Here is a simplifies version, same site. It should work. 
 
www.katmaibears.com
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 8:52 AM by Toby Ross
Once at this site, go to the site map. From there, go to: ursus arctos / brown bear / grizzly. This wilol show you the true size of a grizzly. Also, I might add, coastal grizzly bears far outnumber the smaller inland variety.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 9:01 AM by Toby Ross
Tody Ross, you can get a fair average of a specific population with a high enough sampling. In any population, there will be a higher probability of animals closer to the average weight of these specimens, as well as those abnormally small or large. 
 
You need not weigh the entire population to get a general idea of the average weight of these specimens. We are comparing the 'average' grizzly, not a 1000 lb coastal grizzly. Just as i am comparing the average siberian. 
 
And, it makes no difference rather 1000 lb bears in the coastal region regularly reach 1000 lbs, as i am comparing an average.  
 
And, against a coastal grizzly, i am unsure which would be the usual winner. I believe the fighting prowess of the lion to be superior, as well as the fact they have the higher testosterone level, and would likely be more aggressive/persistent in any battle. It may be 50/50. 
 
And, that website you showed greatly overestimates the weight of the grizzly.  
 
It only states they can weigh as much as 1400 lbs. That is not very descriptive. Of course it can. But, what it can weigh, and the actual average weights, is different.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 10:14 AM by damon
We are talking coastal grizzly bears only here. A 1,000 pound coastal grizzly is as common among these bears as a 500 pound lion is common among African lions. I am sure that when you speak of lions, you are centering on the African population.  
 
When you say that you are not sure that a coastal grizzly can defeat a lion, you are sounding like MrAnimalia making his redicululous statements about tigers who hunt rhinos and elephants. A lion might ( MIGHT ) stand a chance against a grizzly of similar size, but the big cat would be an easy kill for a coastal grizzly.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 10:24 AM by Toby Ross
The grizzly that ate Timothy Treadwell and his friend was well over 1,000 pounds, even though he was very underweight. It is not known for sure if this bear killed the two natuarlists. They could have been killed by poachers or by a jealous park ranger. The rangers did not approve of what the "grizzly man" was doing.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 10:48 AM by Toby Ross
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/info:main_page 
 
This site claims that brown bears, stright out of hibernation, when they are at their lowest weigh, will ofter hunt tigers to take their kills. Usually, in these encounters, if there is a fight, the brown bear wins. If the tiger wins, it is good for the brown bear population, as it removes the weaker bears. This site also tells of brown bears killing polar bears. Ursus arctos is the apex carnivore.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 2:19 PM by Toby Ross
No toby, 1000 pounds is, very, very rare for a grizzly bear. there average is 550 pounds. We are not only using coastal grizzly, we are using all the grizzly bears and the total average, does it say anywhere 'coastal grizzly'? No. 1000 pounds is the biggest Lie ever, that is not even close to the average. And tigers do sometimes kill elephants and rhinos. I don't say a tiger would beat a rhino but it will stand a better chance then a grizzly. And a gaur is nearly twice as heavy as a bull the grizzly killed in the 1830' even that is to much for a grizzly. 
 
Pound for pound tigers are far more muscular then bears. A lion/tiger has 60% muscle mass, A grizzly bear maybe has 30% muscle, I think even that is too much. 
 
Tigers alays kill bears all the time, they eat them and shit them out later. It's nature. 
 
If a cougar meets a 300 pound deer, even tough the deer is heavier and likely stronger the cougar will still have no trouble killing it. Why? Because carnivores are made to kill vegie eaters. that is why tigers always overpower bears even though bears are bigger. A tiger is like a crocodile: A build in destoying and killing machine. A tiger is a sybol of power. A bear is not as fearless as a tiger. And a tiger is more agile, faster and better armed then a bear.  
 
TIGER KILLS GRIZZLY ALL THE TIME
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 5:09 PM by Mr animalia
Sorry MrAnimalia. It doesn't work like that. You decided to use the Bengal tiger in place of the Siberian. That is an entirely different subspecies of tiger.  
 
I am not changing subspecies of brown bear. Just grizzly bears of a particular location. So, I am making less of a change than you are. Read the sites I posted. Coastal grizzly bears range from 800 to 1400 pounds. They are the size of Kodiaks. 1,000 pound coastal grizzlys are as common among them as 600 pound tigers among Bengals and Siberians.  
 
You tiger is built for speed, agility, and jumping. The bear is brute force. Did you know that Damon now admits that the grizzly can take on a tiger?  
 
600 pound Bengal tiger vs 1,000 pound grizzly.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 5:31 PM by Toby Ross
toby ross, if a grizzly was that strong daniel would not have so many records of tigers destroying and owning brown bears. 
 
ANd where does it say coastal grizzly? 
 
And where does it say a grizzly bear averages 1000 pounds? 
 
ANd sinds you use 1000 pound grizzly I believe I can use 800 pound siberina tiger, that is just as commen. 
 
You still haven't replied yet: A tiger is farmore muscular 
 
A tiger is also alot more agile then a grizzly bear 
 
The tiger is also alot faster: 50 mph vs 35 mph 
 
The tiger is better armed, this will make huge difference. sharper tooth and claws. 
 
Experience: while the grizzly has never came into a conflict with a tiger, a tiger has gotten into many conflicts with brown bear before, and ussualy win. 
 
a tiger is a carnivore making it more powerfull then a bear, the vegie eater. 
 
A grizzly bear is not as furios, tigers are like monsters while grizzly bears sometimes back down from cougars, there where also some grizzlies killed by cougars. 
 
A TIGER WOULD OWN A GRIZZLY AL THE TIME
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 5:42 PM by Mr animalia
My money would be on the tiger. Though the grizzly bear, which is a subspecies of brown bear, can weigh more than tigers, most of their weight comes from their large, heavy skeletons and considerable amount of body-fat. By contrast, a tiger's skeleton is quite small given the size of the animal, and its body-fat is minimal - most of its weight comes from its enormous musculature. Tigers have evolved to hunt prey considerably larger than they are - they have to be immensely strong in order to bring down animals like water buffalo and gaur. They also have much larger canines than bears, and the shortened muzzle and large sagittal crest on the skull gives them more powerful jaws. Not to mention their eighteen razor-sharp claws (bears' claws are non-retractile, and therefore blunt from constant contact with the ground). Brown bears, on the other hand, are largely vegetarian. They will occasionally take meat, but it is usually either carrion or young, inexperienced animals that are easy to catch. Such prey is considerably smaller than they are, meaning they do not require as much strength to kill them. There are documented cases of Siberian tigers killing and eating brown bears.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 5:55 PM by Leopulus
MrAnimalia. To answer your questiuon. Go to my post at: 
 
www.katmaibears.com  
 
Go to the site map on that site at: ursusarctos / brown bear / grizzly  
 
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 6:17 PM by Toby Ross
Mr. Animalia, please if you are going to make a case, PLEASE spell check before you submit a rebuttal.It looks far less effective when you submit words like sharper tooth, (teeth), ussualy (usually)& furios (furocious). It is about as lame as your argument.Bears Rule!Boar Grizzlies are second only to Kodiaks. Put that in your kitty litter!
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 6:20 PM by Go Blue
To have the speed, agility, and leaping ability of the big cats, strength had to be sacrificed. Not so for the omnivorous grizzly.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 6:20 PM by Toby Ross
Leopulus, you're wrong about the strength of a Grizzly/Brown Bear. 
 
Although they don't hunt near as often as Tigers do, the fact is that they can hunt and sometimes they will bring down adult Elk and Moose, both of whom are very large. (Up to 1200 and 1500 lbs respectfully) 
 
 
 
Both you and mr animalia seem to think that the Bear is mostly fat and can't match the Tiger in muscle power. You couldn't be more wrong. Bears are very powerfull animals, with an incredibly dense bone struccture and muscle mass. And the claws that they use to dig up roots and excavate dens, are also useful for tearing open prey/carcasses. Yes there are some cases where Siberian Tigers have killed Brown Bears, but the vast majority of those have been females or sub-adults. They usually leave the big males alone. In fact, it's probably more common to see a big male Brown Bear chase a tiger away from it's kill. 
 
That should tell you something, but in mr animalia's case, I would think he's used to hearing a lot of voices telling him things.....in his head.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 6:46 PM by jcol
Ya know, mr animalia, you made a staement that was so far off, I just had to laugh. 
 
"The Tiger is a carnivore and that makes him more powerful than the Bear, the veggie eater."  
 
Be sure to tell that to the Elephant, and the Water Buffalo, and the Rhino, and yes, even the Hippo. 
 
After all, they're all Veggie eaters. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 6:59 PM by jcol
Being omnivorous carnivora is the reason why Ursus arctos is the apex carnivore. He did not have to sacrifice brute strength for speed, agility, and the ability to make incredible leaps. When a tiger faces a bull or an elk, it must use stealth and speed in a sudden ambush attack. Then it clings onto it's prey with hook-like claws. Then, it must strangle it's victim...a slow death. Meanwhile, the big cat is totally winded. 
 
When a grizzly kills a bull bison or a moose, it mauls the herbivore, using it's brute strength. It actually overpowers the bull. It does not need to slowly strangle it's prey. The grizzly is ripping and tearing and breaking bones. When the bear is finished, he is still ready for yet another fight if need be.  
 
Tigers are used to hunting animals bigger than themselves. But, those are true herbivores. A grizzly has the brute strength of a herbivore, but also the ferocity and killer instinct of a predator. Lions and tigers are ferocious, but cannot match the fury of an enraged grizzly.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 9:07 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, coastal grizzlies don`t range from 800 - 1400 lbs. Both figures are, in fact, above the average weight, which makes little sense. That info is not accurate in the least, and a bear, ANY bear, of 1000 lbs is a heavy individual, and abnormally large. 
 
Also, that bear that killed treadwell was not even weighed...so, how do you know it was 'easily over 1000 lbs?' 
 
Also, Toby, the tiger is only but slightly faster than the bear, in terms of running speed. 30 mph vs 35 mph.....not a significant difference. 
 
And yes, based upon the info, i do believe that a grizzly can take on a bear. This is not exactly my personal opinion. However, of the few records i`ve come across, it would seem that yes, on average, the bear would be the usual winner, perhaps 8 - 9 times out of 10. But, not so with the lion, unless the grizzly is significantly larger. 
 
Lions are the most combative/aggressive of the carnivora family.
Posted @ Monday, February 08, 2010 9:32 PM by damon
So Damon. Were you there? How do you know that the bear that ate and ( maybe killed ) Treadwell didn't weigh over 1,000 pounds? How do you know that that bear was not weighed? And as for the size of the Katmai grizzlys, have you been there? How do you know that the park rangers there are just morans who don't know their business? Maybe you should go up there and teach then about grizzly bears. After all, only Damon can finds acurate information.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:37 AM by Toby Ross
I have watched various grizzly bear documentaries and I have seen grizzly bears and Kodiak bears at the zoo. According to the Katmai rangers and info that I can find, the coastal grizzly bears, along with the Kamchatka brown bears, range in size with the Kodiaks. So, I suppose you believe that these bears are roughly the size of a lion? Have you ever actually seen a Kodiak bear?
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:50 AM by Toby Ross
Bart the bear ( Kodiak ) weighed 1480 pounds. Clyde, the biggest brown bear in captivity, weighed 2400 pounds. Sources that I am finding have the Kodiak ranging from 900 to 1200 on average with 1500 pound bears not uncommon.  
 
Damon, what are you finding in your secret source? ( the only true source of information ).
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:05 AM by Toby Ross
Damon. You said that ( quote ) ANY bear of 1,000 pounds is a heavy individual and abnormally large ( unquote ).  
 
Lion Man. What is your opinion here?
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:09 AM by Toby Ross
Damon. Here is a project for you. What is the size range of the Kodiak bear / Kamchatka brown bear / grizzly bears of Katmai National Park / grizzly bears of Alaskan Peninsula ????
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:21 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, i never stated the bear that killed treadwell didn`t weigh over 1000 lbs. Indeed, i don`t know how much it weighed, nor have i pretended i did. 
 
And, i never said anything about the katmai bears, so, what are you talking about? 
 
And, what park rangers gave a report concerning the body mass of these grizzlies?....Did they weigh them, or is it merely estimates? 
 
And no, i`ve never seen a kodiak bear, nor have i ever stated these animals were the size of the lion.  
 
And, what the hell does captive bears have to do with this discussion?...We are talking of wild specimens. A captive lion weighed 930 lbs, while a captive siberian 1025 lbs. 
 
And, the grizzly bears of kodiak island actually averages 312 kg, or 686.4 lbs, kinda lower than the range you mentioned. I don`t like size ranges, because it gives no clear indication of the size of these specimens, on average, which i find to be a more reliable form of measurement.  
 
And, the range in size of the kamchatka brown bear is 140 - 320 kg, which is quite a bit smaller than any of the ranges you mentioned. And indeed, this is based upon a study which i am looking at now.  
 
And, since i`m sure you`re curious, here it is; 
 
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/?action=view&current=brownbearrealsize.png 
 
And, those grizzlies of the alaska penninsula average 357 kg, or 785.4 lbs, a monstrous amount, and also much lower than the 900 - 1000 lbs you claimed they usually weighed. It seems your figures were all off, and didn`t even include the 'average' weights of these animals. How can the weight range of these animals, be higher than their actual average weights? 
 
That`s like saying that human males average 150 lbs, but then giving a range in weight, of 200 - 450 lbs. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:28 AM by damon
686,5 pounds = Kodiak bear. 
 
787.5 pounds = Katchatka brown bears. 
 
705.5 pounds = Alaskan Peninsula grizzlys. 
 
Average = about 726 pounds. 
 
The reason that Ursus arctos can be so much bigger and STRONGER that any big cat is because they are omnivorous.  
 
The reason for the smaller inland grizzly bears is over hunting.  
 
Ursus arctos is the apex terestrial carnivore.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:00 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, you are completely wrong. The reason Ursus arctos can get larger, in SOME areas, is due to their richer diet. In coastal regions, these bears, during the time preceding hibernation, feed on such nutrient rich animals as salmon, or other critters rich in fat content. The inland grizzly is roughly the same size as lions and tigers, but this is mostly due to the fact that their diet consists mostly of plant/vegetable matter. 
 
But, in terms of body size (excluding weight) they are no larger than lions or tigers. Grizzlies grow larger in some areas, as i have stated, due to their higher intake of food. They also lacking in what is known as leptin, which is found in most proteins within the body and which effectively controls hunger. Without it, they are bound to grow to enormous sizes.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:13 AM by damon
And Toby, you got some of the averages wrong. I gave no average of the kamchatka bear.....merely a range in weight. And, the alaskan penninsula grizzly was the largest of the bunch. Just thought i`d point that out.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:22 AM by damon
I asked for averages. I went with the numbers you gave me. And, I know about the salmon diet thing. But, over hunting did play a major roll in the size of inland grizzly bears. That is also the reason for populations of very small black bears. I am sure that, with you, I don't have to explain the problems caused by human hunters.  
 
And the average lion is ( if I remember right ) in the 400 pound range.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:49 AM by Toby Ross
Oh! And Damon. Please, let's dispel a myth here. The ferocity of the lion has been greatly exaggerated. The charge of a lion doesn't even come close to the charge of an enraged grizzly.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:54 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, you gave an average for the kamchatka bear, and i didn`t....i merely gave a range in their weights. 
 
And, the alaska penninsula bear had the highest average, but, you imstead gave that average for the kamchatka bear.  
 
And, Toby, the lion has been found to have the most fulminating form of that 'instantaneous' outburst of energy, compared to ANY other mammal of similar size, and indeed, any other mammal studied. The lion would be able to execute a more effective rush attack.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:08 PM by damon
Let me see if I have this straight. A lion can run 35 mph. A grizzly can run 35 mph. The lion weighs in the 400 pound realm. The grizzly weighs in the 800 pound realm. Oh, I get it now. The lion makes more noise.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:39 PM by Toby Ross
Is there enough size difference to say that any of the "BIG 3" cats is the biggest? Smallest?
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:42 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, grizzlies average about 490 lbs (in my opinion, less than that) not in the 800 lb range. Arguably, they are no larger than lions or tigers, both of which have averaged such weights. 
 
And, the grizzly can run at 30 mph, according to actual timed speeds (the records of which i already have) and the lion 30 - 35 mph, for the male and female, respectively, according to the most reliable estimates. And, the lion averages 420 lbs.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:44 PM by damon
Average male lion = 420 pounds. 
 
Average Bengal tiger = 420 pounds. 
 
Average Siberian tiger = 410 pounds. NOT enough difference to call one tiger bigger than the other as a subspecies. So, just as I suspected, the "Big 3" big cats are all the same size.  
 
According to your findings, the average coastal grizzly = 826 pounds. So, here we have an 826 pound grizzly vs 420 African lion. A 406 pound difference.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:58 PM by Toby Ross
As usual, toby, you are over exaggerating the weight of the coastal grizzly, which was in the 700 lb range, not the 800. Not only that, this is not a contest between the coastal grizzly and a lion or tiger, but an average grizzly bear, period.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:04 PM by damon
I have explained this time and time again. Damon, Christ, MrAnimalia, and all of the hit-and-run players here have claimed all of the "Big 3" big cats from the begining. So, I decided to play by the same rules. Only, I am not carrying this as far as you guys.  
 
Panthera tigris = 2 subspecies. Siberian and Bengal. Panthera leo = a totally different species. 
 
All I am doing in sticking with a single variety of Ursus arctos horribilis. The coastal grizzly bears. Oh, and I noticed that you wanted to stick with only the inland grizzlys.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:19 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, where did i say anything about inland grizzlies?....I gave an average weight of all the grizzlies, inland and coastal included, and the average was 490 lbs, and even that figure may be a bit high, as a few of the data was asymptotic. 
 
I am comparing specimens of near equal weights. But, even a bear much larger would find it difficult to overpower a lion.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:23 PM by damon
So, exactly how tiny would you say the average inland grizzly is?
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:32 PM by Toby Ross
According to a highly respected animal expert whom I admire very much, MrAlien, the imland grizzly bear averages 480 pounds. You can view this at: grizzly bear vs mountain gorilla.  
 
I would like to add here that it was rediculous to pit my favorite animal, the gorilla, against such overwhelmong odds as the grizzly and the Siberian tiger. Rediculous!
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:52 PM by Toby Ross
According to Yellowstone Park Services, the Yellowstone grizzly weighs from 325 pounds to 600 pounds. Taking an average, I come up with 462.5 pounds. Pretty close to what Mr.Alien says. By the way, these are the little inland grizzly bears. When we conclude that the much bigger coastal grizzlys far outnumber the inland variety, your estimate is way off track!
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:39 PM by Toby Ross
So, if I add the coastal variety twice ( as they outnumber the inland grizzly bears ) and the inland variety once, I get an average grizzly of about 705 pounds. This sounds far more likely to me.  
 
But then, why go there? Why not, lion vs coastal grizzly? But, that's alright. You want me to play by the rules, while you "cat people" play outside the rules.  
 
The grizzly is the most ferocious subspecies of Ursus arctos. The lion is just another big cat. The grizzly will kill the lion and, by the next morning, the bear will probably never give the lion a second thought.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:50 PM by Toby Ross
What makes this even more interesting to contemplate, is the fact that the average wt. of the Grizzly is not a steady number, as ALL Bears gain wt as they head towards hibernation. I've read where the coastal Grizzlies will pack on 300-400lbs between the time they come out of and go back into, hibernation. How much wt. would the inland Grizzly need to pick up? 
 
Is it fair to say that mature Grizzlies will be closer to that 600lb wt by the time winter hits? 
 
The question is, when do you decide on what the average wt of a Bear is? 
 
Or is this question even relevant?
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:57 PM by jcol
Good point Jcol. Let's say that the fight takes place on the first day of October. Fact-to-face, on open ground on the Canadian coast.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:04 PM by Toby Ross
I would submit that the fight would Never take place in october, Toby Ross. The big Cat would take one look at the Bear, and skedaddle on out of there as fast as his legs would take him. 
 
That would be the smart thing to do.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:19 PM by jcol
Damon insists that there is very little difference in size between a lion and a grizzly. He appears to insist that the grizzly be "inland grizzly" size. In the 400 pound range.  
 
Why not really prove which species is the apex terestrial carnivore? Why should I stick to a single subspecies, while they ( cat people ) use any big cat of any species to argue their points?  
 
Let's have Panthera leo vs Ursus actos / Panthera tigris vs Ursus arctos. Just get an average weight for all subspecies of Ursus arctos ( October weight ).
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:33 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, who said the inland grizzly was tiny?...The average inland grizzly is 190 kg, or 420 lbs, and indeed, i have the data to prove it.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:14 PM by damon
Toby, you cannot gain an average weight based off the lowest and highest weights of the yellowstone grizzly. And, they average 193 kg, and, in spring and fall, 500 - 575 lbs. And, why do you keep saying i`m talking of the inland grizzly, in my lion-tiger vs grizzly bear argument?... 
 
I didn`t say inland grizzly, now, did i?....I gave an average of all the grizzly populations, coastal grizzlies included, and gave an average that way. The result was 490 lbs, and even that may be too high, as some figures upon the weights of these animals, were asymptotic figures. 
 
And, i gave no estimates, either.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:19 PM by damon
jcol, as the weight of bears fluctuates throughout the months 9as you correctly stated) a more accurate characterization of the weight of these animals, would be to measure specimens throughout all the months in the year, rather than at a specific time of the year, to give a more accurate figure of the weight of these animals. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:23 PM by damon
This is simply not adding up. You say that the average inland grizzly is 420 pounds. Conveniently the size of a lion or tiger. Then you say that the Yellowstone inland grizzlys are 500 to 575 pounds. Then you say that the average grizzly bear is 490 pounds. But, you didn't add into the mix the coastal grizzlys. You say that they are in the 700 pound range ( I think higher ) as these grizzly bears are the size of Kodiaks.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:41 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, can you read?....I said the yellowstone grizzly, averages 193 kg when measured throughout their ranges. However, from an earlier study, the spring and fall weights of these specimens was 500 - 575 lbs. 
 
Do you get it now?...And, as for my average of the inland grizzlies. They averaged 191 kg, which is about 420 lbs. Indeed, this is not an estimate, a guess, or what i want it to be.....that was the average of all the populations added together.  
 
And, i`ve stated, many times, that grizzlies all over (including those of the coastal regions) average 490 lbs, and even that figure may be too high, as some of the averages given for specific populations, were asymptotic figures.  
 
And, it is quite obvious you do not look at the links i`ve shown....because the data is there, and real (no estimates).
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:54 PM by damon
I have told you before, all of this kg crap means nothing to me. The metric system came into American schools long after my school years. So, I have to keep bouncing back and forth from this site to a metric conversion table. But...490 pounds for an average weight for grizzlys is total bull droppings. And definately not above the real average. You talk here about Yellowstone grizzlys ( inland ) and other inland grizzlys.  
 
Again...coastal grizzly bears are in the size range of Kodiaks and Kamchatka brown bears. These larger grizzly bears outnumber the inland grizzlys. So, how exactly did you come to the number 490 pounds?  
 
Damon, you are purposely keeping your figures down to lion size. Grizzly bears are much bigger that that. A coastal grizzly can be 8 feet long or longer. That is body length. A lion has a body length of about 5.5 feet. Then, when you consider the bulk of the grizzly, he is damn sure more than 70 pounds heavier than the lion.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:13 PM by Toby Ross
Toby, i wasn`t purposly doing anything. I tallied up all the data concerning the mass of the ALL the populations of grizzly bears, inland and coastal bears included, and the average was 490 lbs. And, kg means kilograms. 1 kilogram is 2.2 lbs. I did the same with JUST the inland grizzlies, and the average was 191 kg. But, at least you now know what kg is, compared to lbs. 
 
100 kg is 220 kg, just as 190 kg is roughly 420 lbs. 300 kg is 660 lbs, 200 kg is 440 lbs. And so on, and so forth. 
 
And, you asked how i came up with the average of 490 lbs?...I`ve already told you. But, let me explain it so that you can comprehend. I ADDED THE AVERAGES of all the populations of grizzly bears (both inland and coastal bears) and that was the average.  
 
Notice this site you brought up before (which i had seen years before), gives the same average, based upon the same exact records; 
 
http://www.bowhunting.net/bearhunting.net/bear2.html 
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:23 PM by damon
And, Toby, about 2 years ago, i myself did not know what the kg was, as compared to lbs. However, you know what i did to find out?...I looked it up. If you don`t know what a particular word or phrase means, than just look it up. Do you think i learned all this school?...Of course not. I took the time to look up the info i wanted to know.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:26 PM by damon
Damon, I come to this site as a diversion from my mundane, work-my-ass-off, everyday grind of the real world. So my opinion, as that of Toby Ross and everybody else, yes even mr animalia, is just opinion, albeit INFORMED opinion, thru research personal knowledge, and common sense. 
 
 
 
So I have to admit that I am a bit confused as to how you get the average wt of the Brown Bear, which includes the Grizzly. 
 
So I ask you, from the research that you've done, and you've seem to have done a lot of it, tell me; 
 
What is the range of wt. of the inland (yellowstone) Grizzly, coastal Grizzlies, and the Brown/Grizzly Bears further north in the Alaskan Peninsula and national parks. 
 
I also scratch my head over how to accurately measure the weights of Bears, over the course of the year. 
 
What exactly is the point? The question is simply, when do you take the Bear and pit him against the Cat? The wt. of the cat is fairly steady, if prey is plentiful. Genetics pretty much determines how big he'll get. But the Brown Bear is at his most powerfull, his most formidable, in early fall. Even the Inland Grizzlies will reach upwards of 600 lbs, at that time. Coastal Grizzlies can be up to 40% larger, and Alaskan Browns, even larger. 
 
Why not do a study, use specimens from each group, at that time of year, and get your average that way? 
 
I ask this, because where the big Cats are concerned, what you see, is what you get. There is a limit as to how big they will grow. 
 
With the Bear, it's different. What you see, may not be all you COULD get, depending on WHEN you see him. 
 
The question remains; when do you want the battle to take place? 
 
Anything other than when the Bear is not at his best, would be penalizing (and yet perhaps not all that advantageous to the Cat) the Bear.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:33 PM by jcol
jcol, check my previous posts...i explained, rather clearly, how i came up with the average weights of the grizzly, but not specifically brown bears. 
 
And, you asked 'why not give an average weight of the bears when at their peak'? Well, because, it is biased. As you correctly stated, the weights of these animals varies throughout the year. So, wouldn`t it make sense to give an average weight accordingly, such as by giving the weights of specimens not just weighed in spring or early fall, but throughout the different months of the year, not concentrating upon any specific time of the year. 
 
I hope that explains it all.  
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:41 PM by damon
193kg = 425.5 pounds. OK. Inland grizzlys average 420 pounds. Equal in weight with lions. Coastal grizzlys average in the 700 pound range ( according to you ). There aree more coastal bears than inland bears. But, even if they were equal in numbers, the average grizzly would be 560 pounds. That is if the average coastal was an even 700 pounds. But, when you consider that maybe the average size is more, plus the fact that the coastal bears outnumber the inland grizzlys, the average grizzly would be bigger than 560 pounds. So, where do you get this 490 pounds from?
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:48 PM by Toby Ross
Damon. The coastal bears are the biggest population of grizzly bears. They are Kodiak-sized bears. So, the average grizzly would be more than 70 pounds above the weight of an inland grizzly.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:55 PM by Toby Ross
Oke lest make the history of this comment page clear here: 
 
toby ross and daniel where having an arguement and daniel was winning with his huge amount of records. 
 
then damon came in place and also beat toby ross in every way you can win an arguement, then toby left (because he lost) 
 
then me, jcol and lion man where having an arguement. after a long time we settled this to be a draw 
 
the comment page was still for a couple of days. 
 
but then toby came back and re-started again just because he couldn't affort losing. 
 
You are just sad toby, you lost months ago form daniel, just admit it. 
 
and in one comment you said you where 61, and jcol you said you where a bit older then that guyt named do michael who was 44. if you guys are really that old you would have better things to do then argueing on the web about a fantasy fight that will never happen. even about youre age you 2 are lying.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:10 PM by mr animalia
The Hell with all of this average grizzly stuff. Ursus arctos vs Panthera Leo. Give me your biggest subspecies of lion or tiger. Let you big bad cat face the Kodiak bear.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:13 PM by Toby Ross
MrAnimalia is so ignorant. What better to do? I'm retired. 
 
Ursus arctos middendorffi, the Kodiak bear can beat any big cat you have. Lions and tigers are a joke to the biggest of the brown bears. The ultimate terestrial carnivore.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:20 PM by Toby Ross
damon, how can you not include Brown Bears when figuring the avg. wt. when Grizzly and Brown Bears, are the same species. As I understand it, only Kodiaks are considered a sub-species. 
 
Well, it really doesn't matter, I guess. None of us are ever going to change our minds on this. Every once in awhile, a very rare occurance, mind you, mr animalia says something that makes sense and it's time to put this to rest. 
 
But let me be clear on one thing mr animalia; it is the height of stupidity to accuse someone of lying about something you yourself have no knowledge of. I am 50 yrs old, and while that in and of itself doesn't make me smarter than anyone else, it IS the truth. 
 
You have bought NOTHING to this debate other than to piggyback on to what others have said, and make childish, asinine remarks. I can respect damon who has shown intelligence in his postings, but you have just taken up space and wasted everybody's time. My advice to you, is to learn how to conduct yourself in a mature manner. Yeah, we can get a little rough at times, but you have no clue, and zero class to call someone a liar, when talking about thier age. 
 
If you're a kid (young and stupid), I'll give you a pass, if you're an adult, for calling me a liar, you can kiss my ass.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:40 PM by jcol
5 feet high at the shoulders. 10 feet tall bipedal. 1200 pounds ( conservitive weight ). vs your 420 pound lion. Now, tell me again how the lion is the most ferocious beast on the planet.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:45 PM by Toby Ross
JCOL. Since Damon is going with the lion and MrAnimalia is running with the Bengal tiger, and noone can agree on the weight of a grizzly, I am sticking with the Ursus arctos of my choice.Ursus arctos middendorffi, the famous Kodiak bear.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:52 PM by Toby Ross
jcol, you can call me a kid, 
 
I am 15, in high school in canada, in grade 10. I get good marks in biology, the class in which we learn about living creatures, just so you remember grandpas. I am not piggyback ridding the ones who help me, I am using daniels records to prove you clowns that Tigers kill kill and eat browns bears alot more often then they get killed. It's nature. 
 
A grizzly is 8 ft tall and 800 pounds, that is big for a grizzly vs 11 ft 660 pound tiger who is better armed, faster, more agile, more muscular, and a better fighter. 
 
you constantlhy ignore, Dniels records are the truth grampa toby and jcol.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:00 PM by mr animalia
IF the brown bear was the king of beasts daniel wouldn't have over 15 records of tigers killing them. 
 
tigers tear and destroy brown bears every time, Panthera tigris is the real king of beasts. brown bears are fat.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:03 PM by mr animalia
Actually, tigers and brown bears seldom fight. Carnivores more often avoid each other. Only, when other food is scarce and the tiger is really hungry will he hunt female brown bears ( with cubs if possible ). Also, after hybernation, some brown bears actually hunt tigers. Not to eat the tiger, but to take away his kill. Sometimes the tiger kills the bear. Sometimes the bear kills the tiger. Most often, the tiger finally backs down and the bear eats the protein rich meat that he needs after his long sleep. I would like to add here, when one animal backs down from another, he is NOT a coward. That is a human invention. If the tiger has eatten enough, there is no need to risk serious injury from the bear. If a brown bear sees a tiger ( or tiger tracks ) why risk a totally unneccassary fight? There are no cowards among Mother Nature's children.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:18 PM by Toby Ross
so you're 15 mr animalia? 
 
That's about twice as old as you sound. 
 
Daniel and his "records" have been dealt with, we've been through this before. 
 
I sure hope you're not among the best Canada has to offer. 
 
 
 
You're gonna have to get a lot smarter if you want to play with us. 
 
 
 
Toby Ross, I'm gonna go with the Grizzly that resides along the coastal areas. I think it's only fair to at least give the Cat a chance. 
 
Even if it IS a small chance.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:21 PM by jcol
Toby, you don`t gather an average weight of these animals, by comparing the average of all the inland grizzlies, with that of the coastal grizzlies. Instead, an average is gotten by adding All of the averages of each separate population, and getting the mean of all, which was, in this case, 490 lbs. that`s where i got it from. 
 
For example, let`s say you weighed 3 bears, of 145, 190, and 250 kg. If you get the average by adding the lowest and highest figures, you get 197.5 kg. However, that is not the proper way to do it. An average of ALL 3 weights, equates to 195 kg exactly. Even though the difference was slight, the difference would be even greater, the higher the differences in the weights are. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:49 PM by damon
Toby, how is 1200 lbs being conservative, when no population of bear, including polar bears, averages over 1000 lbs? 
 
Likewise, size has nothing to do with ferocity....lifestyle and testosterone does.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:01 PM by damon
JCOL. Damon insists that the average grizzly weighs 490 pounds. Lions and tigers are very commonly 500 pounds or more. And, the coastal grizzlys outnumber the inland grizzlys. It doesn't add up. So, I am no longer using the G word.  
 
Ursus arctos middendorffi vs Panthera leo. / Ursus arctos middendorffi vs Panthera tigris. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:31 AM by Toby Ross
Toby, i`ve already proven the average grizzly weighs 490 lbs. And, despite what you say, lions and tigers do not commonly weigh over 500 lbs. And, you cannot switch up because you think the grizzly is smaller than what you thought it was. 
 
You seem keen on making this a one sided fight....why not a fair one where both animals are near equal in weight?
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:47 AM by damon
damon, I must be stuck on stupid, and I apologize for that. Maybe some of mr animalia is rubbing off on me. I'm still wondering how the avg. wt. of the Grizzly is 490lbs. 
 
(I'm just an old farm guy, so cut me some slack) 
 
If the avg wt. of the inland Grizzly is 420lbs, and the avg wt of coastal Grizzlies is 700lbs, how does that equal 420lbs? 
 
As far as making this a one-sided fight, well the uncomfortable truth is that in naure, life is hardly ever fair.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:03 AM by jcol
Damon. You proven nothing, except that you want these carnivores to be the same size. Problem is, they're not.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:03 AM by Toby Ross
And yes, I can choose the bear I want. The site says Siberian tiger. But, you are running with the African lion. MrAnimalia has chosen the Bengal tiger. So, I choose the Kodiak bear.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:06 AM by Toby Ross
jcol, you do not gain an average weight of these animals, by adding the average of all the inland grizzlies with that of the coastal grizzlies. You gain an average by adding the average of all the populations together, and you get an average that way. 
 
And, i said the average weight of grizzlies is 490 lbs, not 420 lbs. The reason the average was only 490 lbs, was because most of the populations of inland grizzlies, were either slightly above 190 - 260 kg, to below 150 kg.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:12 AM by damon
Toby, i don`t care if these predators are the same size or not...but you have to be realistic. I only gave you the numbers the study had indicated.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:13 AM by damon
And, Toby, i`m not running with the african lion, just said it has a better chance of winning, as compared to the tiger.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:14 AM by damon
The average inland grizzly is 420 pounds. The average coastal grizzly is 700 pounds. Coastal grizzlys outnumber inland grizzlys. The coastal grizzly is 280 pounds heavier than the inland grizzly. So, since the coastal bear outnumbers the inland bear, why is the average grizzly ( 490 pounds ) only 70 pounds above the average inland grizzly?
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:21 AM by Toby Ross
I believe that the 490 pound grizzly can kill your 420 pound lion. But, I also believe that this grizzly is smaller than average. In fact, this 490 pound grizzly probably has less body length than the lion. Probably shorter shoulder height. Even though this ( average ) grizzly is heavier, he is still the smaller combatant here. Yet, the grizzly is a sure winner. The grizzly is not the biggest of the brownies, but he is the most ferocious of all bears.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:28 AM by Toby Ross
The lion has no more to throw at the grizzly than did the tiger. Your lion is just another big cat. The lion is faster and more agile. The grizzly is smarter, stronger, and has stamina.  
 
When a boxer trains, he trains for stamina. This is even more important to a fighter than either strength or speed. The ability to last if the fight cannot be ended quickly.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:51 AM by Toby Ross
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_the_average_grizzly_bear_weigh
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:16 AM by Toby Ross
And, just to prove my point that the average of all the grizzly bear populations is 490 lbs, i`ll give a list of all the weights of the populations of both inland and coastal grizzlies. 
 
Here is a list of all the weights reported for the different inland population of grizzlies; 
 
176 kg (flathead population) 
 
179 kg (eastern brooks) 
 
224 kg (alaska range) 
 
269 kg (Nelchina) 
 
195 kg (Tuktoyaktuk) 
 
148 kg (Mackenzie mountains) 
 
219 kg (yellowstone...average weight from two separate studies) 
 
182 kg (Western brooks) 
 
145 kg (Kluane park) 
 
173 kg (Northern yukon) 
 
coastal; 
 
312 kg (kodiak island) 
 
357 kg (alaska penninsula) 
 
260 kg (Admiralty island) 
 
257 kg (McNeil sanctuary) 
 
The average weight of all those populations combined, is 490 lbs. 
 
Also, Toby, the lion has the most fulminating form of that 'instantaneous' outburst of energy of any animal of comparable size, including the grizzly...so, they`d be able to offer a more effective immediate attack. The lion, likewise, is the most aggressive/combative of the carnivora family. A 420 lb lion would most certainly defeat a 490 lb grizzly.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:24 AM by damon
The 420 pound lion charges with his outburst of speed and energy. Perhaps hitting 50 mph! But, the 490 pound grizzly is not going to just stand still like a sack of flour. He fights back. The grizzly is thick, heavy, and muscular. But, he is not slow.  
 
After his initial outburst of energy, the lion is already winded. Unless the "King of Beasts" can end this fight within the first minute, he will be as helpless as a corps. But, he cannot end this fight quickly. The bruin is still full of energy. 
 
The grizzly mauls the lion. The lion is strong, but the brown bear is stronger. Evolution has not robbed the grizzly of his brute strength to give him quickness and flexibility. The great bear is not built for leaping and twisting. He is a weight-lifter and a bone crusher. The grizzly kills the lion. Then he steps away and licks his wounds. He will live to fight another day. Perhaps a tiger next round. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:38 AM by Toby Ross
Toby ross, I've read some of your previous comment and you seem to underestimate the strength of cats. First of all bears are pound for pound not the strongest land mammals, weasels are. The only reason why cats are more agile is because they have tendons muscle fibers - this is an extra advantage 
 
 
 
Tigers also have better weoponary than the bear, they have sharper claws as the bears claws blund in due constant contact with the ground. they have much larger canines that have sharper inner edges and short in muzzles give them stronger jaws. 
 
 
 
Also, the tiger has more experience, they are masters at fighting powerhouses like buffalos and gaurs, either of these bovines would trample a grizzly bear before it got a chance to roar. 
 
 
 
Tiger wins
Posted @ Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:01 PM by Zackerdy
The Siberian tiger is the biggest of the big cats. He is a combination of strength, speed, and agility. The grizzly is a powerhouse. The brown bear is stronger and smarter than the big cat. The grizzly wins.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:43 PM by Toby
Toby, you have ignored my post. 
 
If a 600 lbs tiger can kill a 3000 LBS gaur, he can toy with a 700 lbs grizzly bear.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:39 PM by Zackerdy
Toby, also do you have evidence that a Brown Bear is smarter than a cat, because it is vice versa. 
 
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/top-15-smartest-and-most-intelligent-animals/ 
 
Cats are the 10th smartest animals, bears ain't even on the list
Posted @ Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:43 PM by Zackerdy
Do your own research. Bears are near to primate intelligence. As for a tiger killing a guar... sometimes. And sometimes the gaur kills the tiger. But a grizzly is not a mere cow. Grizzly bears are far stronger than lions and tigers.  
 
I recently watched a documentary about a lion with 2 kills. A warthog and a gazelle. The lion kept running from one to the other, trying to protect his kills. 
 
The big cat was not smart enough to drag one carcass over to the other.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:53 PM by Toby
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/top-15-smartest-and-most-intelligent-animals/  
 
According scienceray:Cats are the 10th smartest, bears ain't even on the list. 
 
Cats are smarter. 
 
Do you call a gaur a merre cow - youve clearly havent seen one jet. in areas in asia were gaur-Brown bear overlap, no bear has ever deared to fight one of these monsters - meanwhile these giants are on the menu of the tiger. 
 
Bears are nowere nere primate intelligence, you lack on evidence.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:13 PM by zackerdy
And toby? will intelligence save the trooden from the tyrannosaurrus rex? no. You have no reasoning why the bear will win. 
 
Tigers also have better weoponary than the bear, they have sharper claws as the bears claws blund in due constant contact with the ground. they have much larger canines that have sharper inner edges and short in muzzles give them stronger jaws.  
 
Also, the tiger has more experience, they are masters at fighting powerhouses like buffalos and gaurs, either of these bovines would trample a grizzly bear before it got a chance to roar.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:16 PM by zackerdy
zack, you act as if Tigers face off against Buffalo and Guars all the time, when in fact, they very rarely hunt the full grown healthy males of these two species. They usually go after the young, old, or sick, and the success rate is very low. 
 
This is not "fighting", this is hunting. Lone hunters usually avoid confrontation with a larger advasary that's capable of inflicting mortal injuries. 
 
Male Grizzlies on the other hand, do a lot more fighting amongst themselves, especially during the feeding leading up to hibernation. 
 
The Coastal Grizzlies concentrate in a relavtively small area during the spawning of the Salmon. The big males do a lot of fighting to get the best spot, sometimes just to steal a big catch. 
 
Don't underestimate the claws of the Grizzly. They would have no trouble ripping into the flesh of a Tiger. The average weight of the Coastal Grizzly, as it gets close to hibernation, is over 900lbs. 
 
Very few Siberian Tigers go beyond 600lbs.  
 
The Tiger might have a chance against an inland Grizzly, which usually tops out at around 650lbs, but would have very little chance against a coastal Grizzly, and if ever faced with that situation, would probably just walk away from the fight.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:10 AM by Jayson
Noone ever writes down every known animal in these lists. Example: after the bear, and far above the big cats in intelligence is the pig. Before so-called civilized people ventured west, there were two sub-species of grizzly bears out West. The California grizzly and the Mexican grizzly. They both regularly hunted bison. When the Europeans came with their cattle, the grizzly gave the men reason to exterminate them.  
 
A grizzly would have less trouble than a lion or a tiger killing a gaur or a Cape buffalo. A grizzly would have no trouble killing a tiger.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:17 AM by Toby
Toby, again you fail to mention how a grizzly bear is suppose to HURT a gaur. if a grizzly punched a gaur in the face, he will just make it angrier. An antire pride of lions some times fails to take down a lone Cape Buffalo. You call the grizzly more powerful than 5 lions? 
 
And Jason, here are all the avg. weights of all grizzlies, according to damon. 
 
 
 
176 kg (flathead population)  
 
179 kg (eastern brooks)  
 
224 kg (alaska range)  
 
269 kg (Nelchina)  
 
195 kg (Tuktoyaktuk)  
 
148 kg (Mackenzie mountains)  
 
219 kg (yellowstone)  
 
182 kg (Western brooks)  
 
145 kg (Kluane park)  
 
173 kg (Northern yukon)  
 
 
 
coastal;  
 
 
 
312 kg (kodiak island)  
 
357 kg (alaska penninsula)  
 
260 kg (Admiralty island)  
 
257 kg (McNeil sanctuary) 
 
This puts them on an average of 490 lbs, and let's not forget mountians have the greatest population! 
 
A siberian tiger is between 450-500 lbs. Obviously a tiger will easily kill any bear his own size.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:30 AM by Zackerdy
Jason; Did you know that gaur, Buffalo, and other cattle make up the biggest part of the tigers diet. Meanwhile 90% of a bears diet is herbivore.  
 
Some time ago, Chr!$t gave us a record of a Bengal Tiger (smaller than Amur) killing an elephant in a head on head fight. We all now an elephant will mangle any bear. 
 
 
 
Tiger beats grizzly than, obviously 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:39 AM by zackerdy
zack, 90% of the Tiger's diet is wild Boar and Deer, usually Red Deer or smaller species. Everybody knows this. Tigers steer clear of big healthy male bulls like Guar and Buffalo, unless they're desperate.  
 
Now you need to understand a few things about the Grizzly. It is an omnivore, it will eat ANYTHING it can catch, kill or dig up. They can and have hunted and killed Moose, Elk and Bison. The closer it gets to hibernation, the more they eat. They are relentless and the only thing they won't attack is a bigger Grizzly. 
 
We can go back and forth about the average size of ALL Grizzly species, but I'm just using the Coastal Grizzly. You can use whatever species of Tiger you want. 
 
The fact is, male Siberian Tigers, generally regarded as the largest of all cats, range between 400 and 650lbs. That puts the average at about 525lbs. They are not finding very many Tigers these days that go beyond that 650lb mark, and very large individuals of 700+ lbs are almost non-existent these days. 
 
On the other hand, large Coastal Grizzlies of 800-900lbs and more, are more common, because they have to reach that size in order to survive hibernation.  
 
A tiger might have a 50-50 chance against a Grizzly if they were even in size, but the simple fact is that an average size Coastal Grizzly is 200-300lbs bigger than an above average size Siberian Tiger. 
 
The Grizzly wins this fight.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:49 AM by Jayson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys0dW9kNd5I&feature=related 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT435TqaamA&feature=fvw 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7_3cn99DJ8&feature=related 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=almO2Ypp964&feature=related 
 
 
 
These are all videos of Tigers killing Bull Gaur and Water Buffalo. 
 
Oke, if you are using the Coastal Grizzly Only: 
 
 
 
312 kg (kodiak island)  
 
357 kg (alaska penninsula)  
 
260 kg (Admiralty island)  
 
257 kg (McNeil sanctuary)  
 
 
 
This puts them on an average of 296.5 kilo, or 653 Pounds 
 
I'm Aloud to use any tiger - fine I go with the NEPLIAN TIGER. they are the largest today due protective status. they average 527 lb. They're largest are 800 lb. 
 
800 lbs tiger vs. 900 lbs grizzly 
 
 
 
Debate is on buddy!!
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:37 AM by zackerdy
Jayson! I have you now!! Read about COUGARS killing grizzly bears 
 
http://www.freewebs.com/mountainlionsinfo/cougarvsbearsaccounts.htm 
 
 
 
1.) Cougar kills black bear in fight to the death. 
 
 
 
One oft-mentioned tussle between a black bear and a cougar was apparently observed by Major John C. Cremony, who served with the U.S. Boundary Commission in the Southwest Between 1849 and 1951. Cremony, accompanied by Apache guides, had been hunting cougars along the Pecos in the vicinity of what is now Ft. Sumner when the group heard a dreadful but unidentifiable sound. Curious as to what could be making such noises and seeking out the source, they came upon a life-and-death battle between a cougar and a black bear. The bear was quite evidently not enthused about the encounter and would have liked to have broken off hostilities and gone away, but the cougar was apparently deeply intent upon killing the bear. After a number of skirmishes, the cougar successfully clawed through the bear's vital organs. After despatching the bear, the cougar licked its wounds, took hold of the bear's carcass, and dragged it to a more secluded place, where it began to cover the carcass for a later meal. It was at this point that one of the Apache guides killed the cougar.  
 
 
 
5.) "The Indians of California told stories of fights between grizzly bears and lions, with the lion normally the winner, and hunters and others relate stories of fierce conflicts with no clearcut winner, and most often two losers. They describe them as terribly noisy fights with the ground torn up where the skirmishes occurred. The bear would rise to meet the cat's thrusts and throw the cat to the ground. The cat would grasp the bear near the throat and use its hind feet to rake the bear's stomach and chest. The bear was stronger, but the clawing of the cat was highly effective, injuring the bear and causing it to release its holds. Normally they would part, both bloody and battered and neither the winner." 
 
 
 
6.) "Three California accounts detail something of the antagonism between the grizzly and the mountain lion, or panther. Livingston Stone (1883 : 1189) was told by the McCloud River Indians that the panther always killed the grizzly when the two fought. They said that the grizzly was afraid of the lion and that the latter would spring on the bear's shoulders and cut its throat. Stone saw places in the mountains where the ground had been torn up, evidence of a desperate conflict between a panther and a bear. The Indians said they had found bears killed by panthers but no panther a bear had killed." 
 
 
 
11.) And this from Grey quoting Buffalo Jones, who was a warden at Yellostone NP in the early 1900's : 
 
 
 
Jones discovered, while in the park, that the cougar is king of all the beasts of North America. Even a grizzly dashed away in great haste when a cougar made his appearance. At the road camp, near Mt. Washburn, during the fall of 1904, the bears, grizzlies and others, were always hanging round the cook tent. There were cougars also, and almost every evening, about dusk, a big fellow would come parading past the tent. The bears would grunt furiously and scamper in every direction. It was easy to tell when a cougar was in the neighborhood, by the peculiar grunts and snorts of the bears, and the sharp, distinct, alarmed yelps of coyotes. A lion would just as lief kill a coyote as any other animal and he would devour it, too. As to the fighting of cougars and grizzlies, that was a mooted question, with the credit on the side of the former.  
 
 
 
what now?
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:44 AM by zack
Zack, you're just not getting it, are you? I said that almost ALL mature male Coastal Grizzlies get up to around 800 to 900lbs or more because they HAVE to. The avg WT goes up the closer they get to hibernation. And you should be advised that the Coastal Grizzlies, the truely large indiviuals can and have reached 1200-1500lbs. You think your Neplian Tiger wants to go up against one of these big boys? Actually, you'll have to tell me what a Neplian Tiger is. I've never heard of one. I think I know what you're talking about, but you'll have to tell me so I can be sure. I haven't watched the videos you linked, but I've never said Tigers couldn't kill Guars and Water Buffalos, I said they avoid taking on the full grown male bulls. Full grown male Guars kill Tigers more often than Tigers kill them. Every site I've ever seen says the same thing. 
 
The little anecdotes that you listed about Cougars and Grizzlies didn't give any weights/size description or age of the animals. No one in his right mind, would ever take a Cougar over a Grizzly. Sure, anything can happen when two top predators meet, but the Cougar stands virtually no chance when facing off against a Grizzly. None of your stories were first hand accounts, and the last was particulary suspect, because no other Bear will hang around an area where Grizzlies are known to be. Bears scent mark the area, and Black Bears will leave when it a Grizzly moves in. 
 
Try again.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:30 PM by Jayson
Zack, I just watched the videos you linked. 
 
I didn't see a single Tiger kill anything. Oh, they showed Tigers EATING a dead Buffalo or female Guar, but not the actual kill. 
 
FYI, Tigers do scavenge. 
 
I'm not saying they DIDN'T kill the Guars and/or Buffalo, I'm just saying the video doesn't show it.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:22 PM by Jayson
First of all, a Nepalian Tiger is a type of bengal tiger that is the largest tody. A Boar Grizzly might average 800 lbs in the late fall. But what is the overall average troughout the entire year? 653 lbs. why do you need the battle to take place in the fall? Because to you the grizzly needs every advantage possible. 
 
http://citynewslive.com/fullstory2k5-insight-news-status-29-newsID-6008.html  
 
You think size is the only factor here, dont you. read about a TIGRESS who killed an ELEPAHNT 
 
And fullgrown tigers have killed both Bull Gaur and Buffalo aswell. 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm A record of a tiger who'd killed a bear 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:32 PM by zack
I say again: 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm 
 
Read about tigers who kill bear just for fun. That is why they are the apex predators of Asia
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:36 PM by zack
Zack...funny you should mention the Spanish-California's pit fights. Go to  
 
www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html 
 
Grizzly bears have been documented killing not only big bulls but also bull bison with one hit from their powerful club-like paw with claws sometimes as much as 9 inches long. A grizzly can shatter a gaurs skull with just a slap. A lion or a tiger is an easy kill for a large grizzly. 
 
Ursus arctos is the ultimate carnivore.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:14 PM by Toby
By the way Zack...I read those pit fight records which had been translated into English in a book back about 1968. They had a grizzly that fought for many years and died undefeated by any beast they could find. Including bulls, lions, and tigers.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:19 PM by Toby
Toby ross, the same book also stated that no bear was a match for a cougar 
 
http://www.freewebs.com/mountainlionsinfo/cougarvsbearsaccounts.htm  
 
Any animal they could find? I wonder what would happen to the bear if they found a Rhinoceros
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:27 PM by zack
Toby Ross, the pit fights in California were pure myth. A 200 lbs cougar kills a bear but a 2000 lbs bison looses? Also the grizzly bear is nowhere nere strong enough to kill a gaur like that - Bear fans always seem to over rate it's strength and abilities. And a bear kills a moose in a pawswipe - not a bison. Even there you are trying to over rate it's strenght. 
 
Moose skull: 
 
http://www.epplerart.com/Epplerart%20site/images%20Sb/Moose%20Skull%20107.jpg 
 
Gaur skull: 
 
http://www.wildabouttheworld.com/gallery/data/505/WATW_Periyar_Skull_001.jpg 
 
The thick armour around the skull of a gaur will dissalow the grizzly to hurt it. 
 
If a grizzly were to swat a gaur in the face, he wouldn't do anything but make it even more enraged. 
 
A grizzly cannot do anything to hurt a gaur.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:35 PM by zack
My dear Zack...just because you don't like the outcome does not make the California pit fights a myth. They are well documented history. So what if a cougar kills a black bear cub?  
 
A large grizzly can kill any big cat and any bovine. If Smilodon or a cave lion were alive today, a grizzly could kill it.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:07 PM by Toby
Toby, those pit fights eactually said that no Boar Grizzly or Black bear was a match to a Cougar. there were no tigers transported to California. These were the results wether Toby likes tham or not: 
 
Grizzly kills Lion 
 
Grizzly kills Bull  
 
Cougar kills Grizzly 
 
Cougar kills Black Bear 
 
The bear was superior to the lion, but lost to a cougar 24/7. Does that make sense? 
 
And jet again, you fail to prove that a grizzly can kill a gaur or Buffalo.  
 
If the Smilodon Populator was alive today in North America - the grizzly bear would become extinct. 
 
 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm  
 
 
 
Read about tigers killing Brown Bears for the fun of it.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:24 PM by zack
Where are you getting your info? Marvel or DC? No cougar ever killed an adult grizzly.  
 
Do you know why it is known that Smildon was the strongest cat ever? Because he was built more like a bear. 
 
No. I cannot prove that a grizzly could kill a gaur. But, I see no reason to brelieve otherwise.  
 
Did you know that is most fights between gaur and tiger, the gaur wins? But, if a grizzly can kill a bull bison, he could likely kill a gaur just as easily.  
 
One thing for absolute certainty, no lion or tiger can kill a full grown boar grizzly.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:36 PM by Toby
The cave bear was over 90% vegetarian. Therefore, he would have the scent of a vegetarian. However, cave lions and saber-toothed cats probably never hunted these bears. At least, according to evidence. Bears are too powerful for the big cats.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:44 PM by Toby
Their ain't a single record of a grizzly ever killing an Boar healthy Bison. And again you did not prove how a grizzly could kill a Gaur. And gaur do kill tigers, but you know why? Because the tiger has the bravery to attack one, unlike the Brown Bear who Co-excist there. 
 
Also, an average grizzly bear of all parts of it's habitat is roughly 490 lbs, an average siberian tiger is between 450-500 lbs. No bear is a match for a tiger his own weight. Tigers are faster, stronger, agile, sharper claws, larger & sharper canines, stronger jaws, smarter and braver.  
 
Aggression and killing instincts is very important here. A tiger can prey on formidable animals like Buffalo. They are fierce and the KNOW haw to tackle animals like that. Meanwhile bears lack on this experience due they're herbivore way of life - bear do hunt - insects, rodents, small mammals and even caribou and moose on occasion! But this is nothing compared to the tiger - who can regulary prey on large, wild bovines. Bovines like Buffalo's who are far beyond the bears reach. 
 
And last of all, cats like tigers and jaguars are build like the smilodon with muscular legs and bulked up back - the lion is a bit closer to the cheetah - as it has developed living in savanah rather than dense jungle. it need more speed than strenght. 
 
And yeah the tiger, jaguar and smilodon are build thicker and bulkier, jet at equal weights they're musculate is greater - Cats have more muscle mass at equavelant weights than any other mammal - with the jaguar hitting 60% 
 
However in a fight between a lion and a grizzly my money is on the grizzly - as the lion is more adapted for a slender, speedy body.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:50 PM by Zack
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm  
 
Brown Bears are a part of a tigers diet - as these records prove that in a foace to face mathup The tiger will come out on top in real life. There was even a record of a Brown bear who ran from a tigers tracks. The coward! This maker Panthera Tigris Asia's most feared mammal.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:56 PM by zack
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4338/bonedensity1ly8.png  
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/51/t/Lions-density-of-bone.html  
 
 
 
Bears are no stronger than cats lb for lb
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:26 PM by zack
There have been many sightings of grizzlys killing adult bison not only from pioneers but from the plains Indians. The mexican grizzly and the California grizzly regularly killed bison which lived in herds in the millions.  
 
NO Zack...the tiger and the jaguar are NOT built like Smilodon.  
 
The grizzly is pound for pound much stronger than a tiger. YOU said that a lion is built like a cheetah. What comic books are you reading?  
 
Siberian tigers have been known to ambush and kill females and juveniles, but never a grown boar brown bear. In a face-off, even a sow could likely kill the biggest tiger to protect her cubs. 
 
Ursus arctos is the ultimate carnivore.  
 
Tigers normally hunt deer and small pigs. When a tiger kills a large animal like a gaur or a buffalo, it is a quick ambush attack from hiding. Even then, the tiger often loses the fight.  
 
A grizzly, even with his bulk, can run down a carribou or a bison and catch it. And, he still has the energy to kill his quarry. He has never been known to lose the fight. Grizzlys are much stronger than a tiger.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:57 PM by Toby
Toby, agian you have ignored my Record: 
 
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4338/bonedensity1ly8.png  
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/51/t/Lions-density-of-bone.html 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm 
 
If bears kill tiger more often, how come you have NO RECORD at all? because in any face off the tiger always wins - I have a list of detailed records of tigers who killed Brown Bears larger than they are. They were head on head fights. Did you read them, no because of your ignorant comments. 
 
And - tigers kill buffalo's by sprinting in closing the gap and delivering a blow that knocks the bovine of his feat. That blow alone can do huge damage. THEN it bites it's neck 
 
And you have no evidence that the bear is stronger, cats have Lb for Lb equally dense bones, go click on my links above. they also have more musculate. 
 
You have nothing to proof, talk is cheap. And were is the proof that a grizzly killed a Healthy Boar Bison - you don't have any. And toby, a grizzly never lost a fight? You must think the grizzly is superman. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:05 PM by zack
And toby 
 
The strongest cat is the smilodon -the fastest is the cheetah. The jaguar and tiger are more like a smilodon wilth thick limbs and bulked up body - the lion is in between a cheetah and a smilodon, it has meduim sized limbs and a flat body. Not bulked up with muscle, not extremely skinny either, comparable to a serval.
Posted @ Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:12 PM by zack
The article told of a 400 pound male tiger who hunted brown bears. As the article states, this is extremely rare. The tiger hunted female bears and cubs. It killed by ambush attacks. Nothing was said about any boar brown bear in a face-off.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 5:13 AM by Toby
NO Zack... Smilodon was heavily muscled much like a bear. Tigers and jaguars are NOT. That is why the Smilodon was the strongest of cats. Stop making up your own version of science.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 5:18 AM by Toby
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Brown_bear and read Interspecific predatory relationships. 
 
This one is even better... 
 
www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict9.html read both pages.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 6:44 AM by Toby
The American grizzly is not the biggest, but is considered as the most ferocious of the brown bears. They are all the same species ( Ursus arctos ).  
 
A 600 pound grizzly is actually a smaller animal than a 600 pound tiger. To have a fair and ballanced fight, the animals should be measured according to body length. The grizzly would then be the heavier carnivore, becaus has a heavier broader frame and is more heavily muscled.  
 
A tiger with a body length of 6 feet weighs about 600 pounds. the grizzly of the same length will weigh from 800 to 900 pounds.  
 
This would be a fair fight. Yes, the bear has the weight and strength advantage, because he is the more powerful carnivore.  
 
A Smilodon of this same length would likely weigh from 700 to 800 pounds. Poweful, but not as strong as a grizzly.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 6:58 AM by Toby
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/51/t/Lions-density-of-bone.html 
 
Toby, show me evidence that a bear is lb for lb stronger - first of all, cats have equal bone density and far greater musculate, you still don't have an arguement against that. A 600 lbs tiger would have more muscle that a 600 lbs grizzly - As bears need fat to resist injury - a tiger has given up fat for pure muscle. 
 
And it is funny how you mention lairweb. Because that site is based on the 1800' california. However, the same boo also says cougars beat boar grizzly bear aswell. http://www.freewebs.com/mountainlionsinfo/cougarvsbearsaccounts.htm  
 
Also, Cats Do NOT have low bone density, their bones are as strong as Brown Bear bones (click on link on top), designed for bruatal strength the tiger has. And the user of the site understands very little about muscles. The loose tendon fibre muscles developed around the cat's musculate is what gives hime agility - this has nothing to do with elastic, that's just stupid. 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm  
 
You still didn't read the records, did you? There are records of tigers killing bears in head on head fights - Boar Brown Bear o.k. (now don't start crying) 
 
And lenght has nothing to do with this, it's an average tiger vs. an average grizzly - both weight from 450 to 500 lbs
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 11:35 AM by zack
1.) " Hornocker and Quigley bring their great experience with North American mountain lions to their Siberian tiger investigations. Earlier, on the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, Hornocker discovered that a single female cougar had acquired a taste for wild sheep and alone was endangering the desert bighorns living on the range. Recently on the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve, he and Quigley discovered a similar situation. A 400-pound (180 kg) male Siberian tiger had developed an even stranger preference for just one prey: brown bears. Although red deer and other game were readily avaiable, this cat stalked and ate bears almost twice as heavy as itself. The biologists tracked the tiger through the snow to eight separate bear kills, all of which seemed to have been accomplished without great effort, except one. In that kill, there was evidence of a vicious battle with bits of bear hide strewn over a wide area, but the tiger had won."  
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm  
 
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 11:38 AM by zack
No Zack...lairweb is not based on Old California records.  
 
en.wikipedia.org/wikiGrizzly_Bear#Description  
 
The smallest group of grizzlya are the inland grizzlys of the Yukon region. They range from 300 lbs to 500 lbs ( adult male ). By far the biggest population is the coastal grizzlys which commonly reach 1200 lbs. The third population of grizzly bears which also outnumber the inland yukon grizzlys are the bears of Katmai National Park. These grizzly rival the kodiaks and Kamchatka bears at 1500 pound boars. This would make the average grizzly about 1,000 pounds.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 12:09 PM by Toby
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm  
 
 
 
Brown Bears are a part of a tigers diet - as these records prove that in a foace to face mathup The tiger will come out on top in real life. No brown bear will be winning a fight against a healthy Boar tiger, who is the most indesputable predator of all land mammals.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 12:15 PM by zack
Zack...are you just lying to me or to yourself? Do you really believe that your average 500 pound tiger can kill my average 1,000 pound grizzly in a face-off?
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 12:30 PM by Toby
Toby, a grizzly bear is nowhere near 1000 lbs. The Polar bear is the largest with an average 900-1000 lbs, same as the kodiak. The grizzly bear averages 500 lbs - I'm being genarous with 500 lbs because most sites say 350 to 550 lbs. the overall average: 
 
 
 
176 kg (Silvertip population)  
 
179 kg (eastern brooks)  
 
224 kg (alaska range)  
 
269 kg (Nelchina)  
 
195 kg (Tuktoyaktuk)  
 
148 kg (Mackenzie mountains)  
 
219 kg (yellowstone)  
 
182 kg (Western brooks)  
 
145 kg (Kluane park)  
 
173 kg (Northern yukon)  
 
357 kg (alaska penninsula) 
 
260 kg (Admiralty island)  
 
257 kg (McNeil sanctuary)  
 
 
 
this puts them on an average of 214 kg, or 472 lb - About the same of the siberian tiger, unfortunatly no bear is a match for a tiger his own size.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 12:32 PM by zack
The Kodiak bear ranges from 1200 to 1500 pounds on average with individuals weighing in at 2,000 pounds. 
 
Coastal grizzlys ( which is the largest population ) average 800 to 1200 pounds with individuals weighing 1500 pounds. The smallest grizzly population are the inland grizzlys of the Yukon, 350 to 500 pounds with individuals weighing 700 pounds. 
 
inland grizzly = 7 to 9 feet tall. 
 
coastal grizzly = 9 to 10 feet tall. 
 
Kodiak = 11 feet tall.  
 
Overall...a grizzly is MUCH bigger and MUCH stronger than a tiger. However, a 600 pound grizzly could easily kill a 600 pound tiger.  
 
The grizzly is also MUCH smarter that the slow-witted big cat.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 5:37 PM by Toby
Zack...I dought very seriously that a tiger's bone density is any greater than a bears. The legbone of a tiger compared to the legbone of a grizzly is like comparing a broom-stick to a tree trunk. 
 
Common sense...look at both animals. The head, neck, shoulders, and arms of the grizzly are massive.  
 
When a tiger is walking straight toward you, you see little more than it's head. He is basically flat so that he can slink quietly through the forest.  
 
When a grizzly is facing you, you see his broad massive ribs. You see a lot of BEAR.  
 
That shoulder hump is rock-hard solid muscle. The grizzly can rip through concrete-hard frozen ground in search for roots and grubs. He can overturn huge logs and boulders with ease. 
 
Tigers eat little else that raw meat. Therefore, a tiger has no need for brute strength. The big cats are not brutes, they are hunters built for stealth and a sudden burst of speed.  
 
IF a tiger slaps a grizzly, the bear will have some painful wounds from the big cat's meat-hook claws. That will anger the grizzly. 
 
IF the grizzly slaps the tiger, the big cat will likely have a broken neck.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 5:57 PM by Toby
Toby these are the average size of all bears you mention: 
 
 
 
Polar bear: 1000 lbs - 10 ft 
 
Kodiak bear: 900 lbs - 9 ft 
 
Coastal grizzly: 700 lbs - 8 ft 
 
Innerland grizzly: 400 lbs - 7 ft 
 
 
 
The mountains have a far greater area and population: 
 
 
 
176 kg (Silvertip population)  
 
179 kg (eastern brooks)  
 
224 kg (alaska range)  
 
269 kg (Nelchina)  
 
195 kg (Tuktoyaktuk)  
 
148 kg (Mackenzie mountains)  
 
219 kg (yellowstone)  
 
182 kg (Western brooks)  
 
145 kg (Kluane park)  
 
173 kg (northern yukon) 
 
----------------------------- 
 
Coastal areas: 
 
357 kg (alaska penninsula)  
 
260 kg (Admiralty island)  
 
257 kg (McNeil sanctuary)  
 
they average the same, around 450 to 500 lbs. A tiger will kill ANY bear his own size.
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 5:59 PM by zack
You are just adding numbers of these very tiny populations. By far, the greatest grizzly populations are the coastal grizzlys followed by the grizzlys of Katmai National Park. Well over 50% of grizzlys live in these 2 areas. Third on the list are the Yukon grizzlys.  
 
So...if we go low and say that the average coastal grizzly and Katmai grizzly is 700 pounds. The average Yukon grizzly is 400 pounds, then the average grizzly is 625 pounds.  
 
ONE thing for certain, a grizzly is much bigger, stronger, and smarter than a tiger.  
 
Never-the-less, a 500 pound grizzly can easily overpower and kill a 500 pound tiger. This is small grizzly vs big tiger. The grizzly still wins.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 6:14 PM by Toby
The coastal grizzlys are by far the largest grizzly populations. The size of these grizzlys which include the Katmai bears are roughly the size of Kodiaks and Kamchatka brown bears.  
 
To say that the average grizzly is 500 pounds is rediculous. In fact, 600 pounds is really a low number when some of these bears range in size from 900 pounds to 1400 pounds.  
 
But, to end this SIZE argument, I'll settle for a 600 pound grizzly. After all, what chance would any big cat have against this brute?
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 6:33 PM by Toby
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/51/t/Lions-density-of-bone.html  
 
 
 
Toby, show me evidence that a bear is lb for lb stronger - first of all, cats have equal bone density and far greater musculate, you still don't have an arguement against that. A 600 lbs tiger would have more muscle that a 600 lbs grizzly - As bears need fat to resist injury - a tiger has given up fat for pure muscle.  
 
 
 
And it is funny how you mention lairweb. Because that site is based on the 1800' california. However, the same boo also says cougars beat boar grizzly bear aswell. http://www.freewebs.com/mountainlionsinfo/cougarvsbearsaccounts.htm  
 
 
 
Also, Cats Do NOT have low bone density, their bones are as strong as Brown Bear bones (click on link on top), designed for bruatal strength the tiger has. And the user of the site understands very little about muscles. The loose tendon fibre muscles developed around the cat's musculate is what gives hime agility - this has nothing to do with elastic, that's just stupid.  
 
 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm  
 
 
 
You still didn't read the records, did you? There are records of tigers killing bears in head on head fights - Boar Brown Bear o.k. (now don't start crying)
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 10:26 PM by Zack
Toby, show me evidence a Grizzly bear is 1000 lb on average. 
 
www.bearaware.bc.ca/bears/bears_content_grizzly3bb.html  
 
http://www.ursusinternational.org/en/factsgriz.html 
 
http://www.greatbear.org/brownbear.htm 
 
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/ 
 
All these sites say the grizzly bears weight is anywhere between 400 to 600 lbs - equal to the tiger 
 
Not a single site said the grizzly bear is 1000 lbs on AVERAGE - not a single
Posted @ Friday, July 16, 2010 10:33 PM by zack
Cats are a lot more intelligent than people give them credit for. They are capable of forming attachments to people and communicating their needs and wants. They are capable of “instinctual thought.” Cat owners will agree, these are animals are truly smart.  
 
 
 
 
 
These animals have many wants. The stories people tell are all about cats who are cunning, aloof, and always hungry. In many ways, this image is correct, but there’s a lot more to most cats than this. They have personalities – and that may mean that they don’t hesitate to demand whatever they want, be it food, play, or to be left alone.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
How do cats get our attention? Those with louder “voices” may meow at their owners endlessly. They may also follow you around, insist on sitting on your laps (or near to), or rub against your ankles. All of these are signs that the cat uses to say “I’m here! Pay attention to me!” If we choose to oblige, we can learn more about them as individuals.  
 
 
 
The myth says that while dogs are man’s best friend, cats are aloof and no one’s ally – that is, they use us as means to get what they want, and nothing more. However, this is often untrue, especially with the more intelligent cats. Cats can form attachments to their owners if given the chance, and will reciprocate the love they’re shown. They are not quite as fickle as they’re often portrayed.  
 
 
 
 
 
New owners will want to get to know their cat, much the same way they get to know a new person. Pay attention to what the cat does – when and where does s/he like to sleep? Is s/he the quiet type, or does s/he meow all the time? Is s/he the “fussy” type who is very selective about food and people? Does s/he like to be held or sit on laps?  
 
 
 
 
 
All of these are characteristics that define a cat. By paying attention to them, it’s possible to help them form that attachment and to tell how smart they really are. Watch how much the cat seems to pay attention to the world around him. A smarter cat will use his keen senses to stop and take note of a situation before acting, and will seem to ‘think’ about what would be best to do. They also may pay attention to specific stimuli, such as the TV or the radio. Some outdoor cats have even learned to check for traffic before crossing the street.  
 
 
 
 
 
One very intelligent cat knew exactly how to manipulate her owner. She learned to recognize her owner’s footsteps (vs. the rest of the family) coming up the front walk. When she heard her owner’s footsteps, she would run first towards the door, then up the opposite stairs. From the top of the stairs, near the entrance to the owner’s bedroom, she would wait and meow until the owner came to say hello. When she heard the rest of the family’s footsteps, she would run away from the door and hide. In many similar cases, the cat showed the same behavior in response to voices.  
 
 
 
 
 
The cat also showed direct communication with her owner. At night, if she knew it was ‘bedtime,’ she would find her owner and let her know, verbally, that it was time to go upstairs. If the owner was at her computer, near the stairs, the cat would step off the stairs, directly onto the computer table, and would make it impossible for her to continue working. On weekends, when the owner did not go to bed until later, the cat would insist on sleeping in her lap.  
 
 
 
 
 
Many cats do exhibit this type of behavior. They get to know their owners as much as their owners get to know them. They learn routines from months or years of experiencing them, and may learn to issue gentle reminders about parts of this routine that include them. They will certainly issue reminders if it’s time to feed them. Also, since many cats enjoy sleeping somewhere near the owners (at the foot of their bed, on their pillow, even being held by the owner), they may remind the owner about bedtime. Because of this, cats may become almost human to their owners.  
 
 
 
 
 
The ones that live outdoors are just as intelligent as indoor ones, and have very different ways of showing it off. In one case, a cat had a very long memory of one isolated incident, which is unusual. A raccoon attacked the cat when she was barely a year old, and a family with quite a bit of property took her in and let her roam around. When she’d had her first litter of kittens, she took them out hunting, and they killed a raccoon that was much larger than they were. To the cat’s family, they were avenging the attack.  
 
 
 
 
 
Most cats are capable of these kinds of intelligent and sometimes surprising behavior. To get the most out of the cat, spend time with him. Play with him, talk to him, play music for him, watch TV with him. Many cats surprisingly show an interest in the television and even seem to remember where it is and what it does. They also may show an interest for certain kinds of shows – animal shows and cartoons shows are a big hit. Cats like watching other animals, as well as anything bright, colorful, and rapidly moving. Some also enjoy listening to music and possibly even their owner singing.  
 
 
 
 
 
Cats will learn their owner’s patterns and rhythms. If a cat enjoys sitting with an owner while he or she is watching TV, or relaxing in his or her bedroom, s/he will learn to listen and look for the owner going to that location. They may learn to listen for music or television sounds, or even a door closing. When they see and hear these clues, they may go and find their owners. Some may frequently relax in one specific room that ‘belongs’ to them.  
 
 
 
 
 
They can also learn to ‘talk’ to their owners. When an owner speaks to them, recognizing the voice and its tone (for example, a happy, ‘conversational’ tone), they may meow in response, or get up and walk towards the owner. It’s possible to have a ‘conversation’ this way. One cat eventually learned to meow in such a way (from time to time) that it sounded like she was saying a word in response to her owner’s questions.  
 
 
 
 
 
They are most relaxed, generally, when they are with the owner(s) they trust the most and there is nothing within hearing or sight range that may even possibly threaten them. This may include rowdy children, other animals, or other stimuli (such as thunder, other loud noises). They will generally allow their owner to play more when they are relaxed than when they are busy observing their environment in case of danger. If an owner lifts the cat, they can feel the difference in the cat’s body – a relaxed cat is loose and light, and scared cat is tight and heavy. Bonding is best when the cat is relaxed and ready to play.  
 
 
 
 
 
Owners can get to know their cat and bring out the best in them by playing with them whenever possible. They’ll learn nonverbal communication this way, too – owners may be able to see the cat smile, or read the look of love and contentment in his or her eyes. Though cats may be more ‘selective’ than dogs, they are just as willing to lavish love on their ‘special’ owner as the dogs are. Some may even learn to do tricks, just like dogs! So cherish the cats and invest love and time in them. They will give back by showing off their incredible intelligence and loyalty.  
 
 
 
http://www.essortment.com/all/intelligencecat_rmmk.htm
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 12:56 AM by zack
Advatages in which the tiger dominated the grizzly his size: 
 
Speed - 50 mph vs. 35 mph 
 
Agiliy - additional fast twitch muscle fibres 
 
Sharper claws - bears claws are blung due constant digging 
 
Larger canines - 5 inch vs. 3 inch 
 
Sharper Mauling teeth - same as claws 
 
Higher bite force - 1200 psi vs. 800 psi 
 
Experience - Grizlzy bears don't deal with tigers 
 
testastrone - when a grizzly sees a wolf or cougar he will climb 
 
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:11 AM by zack
zack, please stop being foolish. It's one thing to take the side of the Tiger in this little tussle, that's your choice. We can agree to disagree on the outcome. 
 
But don't insult our intelligence with your ridiculous comparisons. The last one was especially stupid. At least try to be realistic in your arguments, otherwise you lose all credibility, and you don't have much left anyway.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:44 AM by Jayson
Grizzys seldom climb trees. The tiger has sharper teeth. The grizzly has a stronger bite. Bone density equal, but the bears bones are much heavier, like comparing tree trunks with broom sticks.  
 
Because of the much stouter build of the grizzly, I am sure that a little 500 pound grizzly is stronger than your average 500 pound tiger.  
 
It's like looking at a weight lifter and knowing that he is stronger than high jumper. It doesn't take a genious.  
 
But, when you put your average grizzly ( from 600 to 700 pounds ) there is certainly no contest as to who will kill who.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:26 AM by Toby
Advantages: 
 
intelligence ... grizzly. 
 
size ........... grizzly. 
 
strength ....... grizzly. 
 
speed .......... tiger. 
 
jumping ........ tiger. 
 
sharper claws .. tiger. 
 
stronger claws . grizzly. 
 
stealth ........ tiger.  
 
stronger bones . grizzly. 
 
height ......... grizzly. 
 
weight ......... grizzly. 
 
endurance ...... grizzly. 
 
*The reason I say stronger bones, they both have very dense bones, but bigger is stronger. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:35 AM by Toby
Zack... we are not talking about house cats here. Those cats listed as small cats are smarter than the big cats. Lions and tigers are simply not very bright. Bears are higher in intelligence than even wolves. Oh, YES dogs are smarter than cats.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:43 AM by Toby
Toby, you have ignored a lot of the tigers advatages such as larger canines, sharper canines, stronger jaws and agility. 
 
Strenght - equal, you still have no evidence 
 
Size - equal, 500 lb 
 
Sharper claws - tiger 
 
stronger claws - grizzly 
 
speed - tiger 
 
agile - tiger 
 
endurance - grizzly 
 
intelligence - grizzly 
 
testastrone - tiger 
 
stronger jaws - tiger 
 
larger canines - tiger 
 
sharper tooth - tiger 
 
height - grizzly
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:43 AM by zack
Toby, comparing humans to animals is showing how dumb you are, our body structure is build like apes, not bears or felids. 
 
And toby, did you know that on the school's track and field day, the people who dominate the running and jumping events are also physacily stronger. Why? Because they're body has become more muscular and powerful build, sound like the tiger? 
 
But again, human - animal comparison is just dumb
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:48 AM by zack
So...you are saying that an runner and high jumper can lift heavier weights that a weight lifter? 
 
Open your eyes Zack. You are not even looking at and comparing these two carnivores. The grizzly is massive! The average grizzly outweighs the average tiger by at least 100 pounds. His physical strength is probably double that of the big cat. Grizzlys have been seen dumping over full dumpsters weighing tons! I have already explained the grizzly lifestyle. No big cat could dig into hard frozen ground. A man cannot dig into it with a shovel. He needs to break the frozen earth with a pick-axe first. the grizzly overturns fallen trees and boulders that no big cat could budge. 
 
In pure brute strength, there is NO contest. The grizzly is by far the stronger of the 2.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:04 AM by Toby
Toby, both tiger & bear have equal bone density, tigers have lb for lb more muscle mass - SO WHAT MAKES THE GRIZZLY LB FOR LB STRONGER? 
 
And every single source i've went to says the grizzly bears average to be roughly 400-500 lb. With innerland being as little as 250 lb while coastal reaching 900 lb or more on rare occasion. 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm 
 
Toby has no evidence to back up ANYTHING he says. 
 
" Hornocker and Quigley bring their great experience with North American mountain lions to their Siberian tiger investigations. Earlier, on the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, Hornocker discovered that a single female cougar had acquired a taste for wild sheep and alone was endangering the desert bighorns living on the range. Recently on the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve, he and Quigley discovered a similar situation. A 400-pound (180 kg) male Siberian tiger had developed an even stranger preference for just one prey: brown bears. Although red deer and other game were readily avaiable, this cat stalked and ate bears almost twice as heavy as itself. The biologists tracked the tiger through the snow to eight separate bear kills, all of which seemed to have been accomplished without great effort, except one. In that kill, there was evidence of a vicious battle with bits of bear hide strewn over a wide area, but the tiger had won."
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:10 AM by zack
toby, again; Humam - Animals is no comparison. We humans are related to apes, our body structure is completely different. And the reason why a grizzly can dig so hard is becauseof it's muscles are in the upper-body, meanwhile most of a tigers muscles are spread around it's body. The legs of a bear are very weak.  
 
If you dont understand that little, what are you doing on this site?
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:16 AM by zack
bla bla bla bla bla bla and bla Zack. You only read and see what agrees with your twisted ideas. You keep harping about bone density. YES!!! The tigers bones are as dense as the grizzlys. BUT! The grizzlys bones are more massive, thus... STRONGER.  
 
A 900 pound coastal grizzly is not rare. In fact, a 1,200 pound coastal grizzly is not rare. Anything above the 1200 pound mark can be considered rare. There are 1400 pound individuals. Nearly the size of kodiaks.  
 
A grizzly has weak arms??? 
 
That sounds like panic. You cannot think of anything intelligent to say? The grizzlya arms are double the strength of a tigers arms. The grizzly is strong all over.  
 
The grizzly cannot leap like a tiger, because he has bigger heavier bones and a Hell of a lot more muscle.  
 
YOU cannot be a sprinter and a high jumper and also be a weight lifter. This is true not only for humans, but for wild carnivores too.  
 
*Common sense Zack. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:33 AM by Toby
According to National Geo, the average Siberian tiger is 660 lbs. 
 
The average grizzly is 800 pounds. 
 
Remember that many averages are based on the weights of both males and females. It woulod be much easier to come up with an accurate average for tigers than for grizzlys. There are too many variables. Various groups. Time of year. How many in each population.  
 
The true average could range from 600 pounds to 800 pounds.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 12:34 PM by Toby
By the way, I do not agree with those averages by Nat Geo. No matter where you read, you get a different story. 
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuri_Brown_Bear  
 
This is the Black Grizzly of Asia. He is a true grizzly. About 1500 years ago, a group of these bears made their way into North America.  
 
Siberian tigers, when hard pressed, hunt and kill these bears. They hunt females and juveniles. However, a tiger will kill a sleeping adult boar during it's hybernation.  
 
Boar grizzlys kill adult tigers, both male and female. This is usually when the bear takes away the tigers kill. If the tiger is foolish enough to stand his ground and try to protect his killed prey, the grizzly will then kill the tiger. I am not sure if the grizzly will eat the tiger? 
 
In an ambush attack, a tiger might even kill a grown boar grizzly. I doubt that this happens very often. But, in a face-to-face confrontation, the grizzly has a huge advantage. Size and strength. also, grizzlys fight each other often. Tigers rarely fight other large carnivores. So, add experiance and intelligence.  
 
OH! I was looking at a picture of a tiger's skeleton. Then I compared it with a grizzly skeleton. The big cat is so fragile in comparison!
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:12 PM by Toby
Toby, national geography says the tiger/grizzly is up to 800 lb or 660 lbs - a mere assumption is made. And sinds when does up to mean the same as average? And toby, wikipedia is not a relieble source. Anyone can edit or revise it. 2nd of all, how much experience does a grizzly have fighting tigers? zero. Meanwhile the tiger can regulary prey upon these bears, they know how to deal with these animals. Experience goes to the tiger. 
 
And toby, lb for lb the lions skeleton is equally powerful to the brown bears, not just dense, but also powerful - clearly you did not read my evidence. You merely read the site name and discription And how much muscle mass does a tiger have? 60% how much does a bear have? 40 to 55 % depends on what time of year, on average roughly 47.5% - Now do the easy math. 
 
60% of 600 lb = 360 lb of muscle 
 
47.5% of 600 lb = 292.5 lb of muscle 
 
At equal weights, the tiger has 67.5 lb more muscle mass than a grizzly bear does. this makes the tiger 1.3 - 1.5 humans stronger. However the bears slighly heavier bones make it up for him. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT A BEAR IS LB FOR LB STRONGER. Therefore either prove it or shut up. 
 
You also have no record of a Brown bear ever killing a tiger, even there you lack on proof. meanwhile I have 28 records of tigers killing bears in head on head fights. 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 7:53 PM by zack
I just showed you a site telling of grizzlys killing tigers ( again ). You are not reading them. You are affraid of the truth. You skip right over that site about the black grizzly and then say grizzlys don't kill tigers. 
 
Here is another site which tells of the strength of the grizzly. Also tells of how a grizzly can kill a moose with a single slap.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:47 PM by Toby
Toby, NatGeo got the sizes wrong. The average of all grizzly populations was actually 490 lbs, and it only included adult males. The average of siberian tigers, from the Siberian Tiger Protect, or STP, based upon 18 adult males weighed, was about 182 kg, and the largest reliable siberian tiger`s weight, measured by scientists, was 250 kg.  
 
And Toby, yes, you can be a sprinter and a weightlifter. Tigers are rather large animals, immensely strong and still rather fast.....estimates of 35 mph was given for a female, by Schaller......there is no truth to the 50mph claim. 
 
But, in a fight, the grizzly would usually win, due to their fighting 'tactics', as compared to the tiger. The tiger, in a battle, would come in all tooth and claw, gaining the early advantage, particularly seeing as they are a more agile species....however, they soon tire, and then the bear will gain the advantage....at least, such cases were witnessed by clyde beatty.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:58 PM by Damon
Tigers are incredibly strong. They are the apex land predator ( in my opinion ) as I do not consider the grizzly as a true predator, alothough he does occasionally hunt. But, this is about more than simply who can win in a fight. 
 
Zack believes ( or wants me to believe ) that a tiger is physically bigger and stronger than a grizzly. 
 
Check out this site: 
 
www.northwesternwildlifeonline.com/Ursidae%20Homepage.htm
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:07 PM by Toby
Toby, I've never said that a tiger is larger and stronger than s grizzly, I said they are equal in both of them. They both average around 450 lb which is a bit larger than a lio who is 425 lb. Now you still have no evidence that a grizzly bear is lb for lb stronger than a tiger. They both have equaly strong bones, the grizzly bears are slightly thicker that the tiger's, but cat's have more musculate than any other mammal, including bears and gorillas (toby's favorites). A lion from Africa holds the record at 60%. Meanwhile a grizzly bear vary from 40-55% depending on what time during the year. This makes them roughly equaly strong and powerful. Again human-animal coparison are useless and stupid. A 200 lb cougar is more athletic than a 200 lb hyena, jet it is atleats as strong or possibly stronger. 
 
And Damon, did you know there was a record that had measured the weight of American Grizzly bears of both coastal and innerland areas all throughout the year. And got an average of 427.5 lb or 194 kg. The other record you mentioned says 490 lb, this one was also reliable. take the average f the two records, which makes the grizzly 459 lb. Equal to a tiger. And only slightly bigger than a lion.  
 
And also, for a cat. the siberian tiger above average stanima in it's natural habitat. However, endurance is a weakness for all cats, but their speed and agility makes it up for them. 
 
Due the tigers larger, stronger canines, more powerful jaws and sharper claws. He will probably be the winner, this is my opinion. Damon has his own.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:12 PM by zack
zack, actually, tigers aren`t larger than lions, according to figures from reliable data upon this subject. And, at equal weight, i would hazard a guess that the muscle mass of the grizzly bear would be equal as compared to the lion or tiger. 
 
And, zack, can you show those records of the grizzly bear? Also, it is not merely an opinion of mine that the tiger would usually lose....i have actual data, from Clyde Beatty`s menagerie, which indicates the grizzly would be the usual winner.  
 
And no, tigers do not have above average stamina. At least, not that i`ve been aware of.....and, their lifestyle does not warrant it.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:25 PM by Damon
Here you go Damon, there are a lot more records on this link: 
 
http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigerpredationonbears.htm 
 
" Hornocker and Quigley bring their great experience with North American mountain lions to their Siberian tiger investigations. Earlier, on the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, Hornocker discovered that a single female cougar had acquired a taste for wild sheep and alone was endangering the desert bighorns living on the range. Recently on the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve, he and Quigley discovered a similar situation. A 400-pound (180 kg) male Siberian tiger had developed an even stranger preference for just one prey: brown bears. Although red deer and other game were readily avaiable, this cat stalked and ate bears almost twice as heavy as itself. The biologists tracked the tiger through the snow to eight separate bear kills, all of which seemed to have been accomplished without great effort, except one. In that kill, there was evidence of a vicious battle with bits of bear hide strewn over a wide area, but the tiger had won." 
 
And Damon, tigers actually do have more muscle mass than a grizzly his own size. But the Bear's slightly thicker bones makes them equal in power. And today, lions and tigers are equal in size due tha tiger such little population, Tigers have the genetics to be larger than lions. the laregst lionn in the wild was 750 lb, the largest tiger was 858 lb. And they would still be larger if we humans didn't hunt them non-stop.
Posted @ Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:18 PM by zack
I have explained this to you before Zack. But you are apparently slow to comprehend. The grizzly has thicker heavier bones. Also, the grizzly has a much broader frame. ( he is much wider ) Therefore, more body to hold more muscle.  
 
Zack...a grizzly is BIGGER and STRONGER than a tiger.  
 
www.bowhunting.net/bearhunting.net/bear2.html 
 
Quote: ( refering to grizzly ) No animal of equal size is as powerful. A grizzly may kill a moose by a single blow to the neck with a powerful foreleg, then lift the carcass in it's mouth and carry it for great distances. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:01 AM by Toby
Largest tiger of any sub-species: 
 
Bengal tiger = 857 pounds. 
 
Grizzly = 1,499 pounds. 
 
The record grizzly is over 600 pounds heavier than the record tiger. Coastal grizzly males average about 1,000 pounds. The big majority of living grizzlys are coastal bears. The average grizzly is ( without doubt ) bigger than your average tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 7:21 AM by Toby
Let's talk SPEED. 
 
A tiger can run 35 mph for a very short distance. A grizzly can run 30 mph over a long distance. 
 
Conclusion: the grizzly is the better runner.  
 
It is called stamina. This is as big an advantage to the grizzly as his greater size, greater strength, and his higher intelligence.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 7:39 AM by Toby
Another big advantage for the bigger, stronger, smarter grizzly: 
 
Method of killing. A tiger kills with his jaws. Either a strangle hold or a bite to the back of the neck. He must get in close to kill. 
 
The grizzly kills with his incredibly powerful arms, paws, and claws.  
 
In a stealthy ambush attack, the tiger might stand a chance. In a confrontation ( a face-off ) the grizzly has a huge advantage.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 7:47 AM by Toby
zack, i wasn`t talking of those records (which i`ve already seen) but instead records of the size of the coastal brown bears, in which you stated they averaged about 194 kg, measured throughout the year. I`d like to see them.  
 
Also, about the bear-killing tiger? It was actually 445 lbs, and it mostly attacked female bears coming out of their dens, by ambush of course. In most cases, the sex of the bears were never mentioned, nor the size or condition of the animal.  
 
And, there are no studies (that i`m aware of) on the muscle mass of the grizzly bear, and the average siberian (a little over 400 lbs), has a muscle mass of roughly 60%.....however, as weight of the animal increases, his relative muscle percentage DECREASES, as the relative space for muscle growth is limited by his larger proportion of fat and other such bodily substances that take up available space with growth.  
 
And no, tigers do not have the genetics to be larger than lions. And, what does population size have to do with actual body weight? I`ve found the weight of these specimens to be rather equal, though you should note the 857 lb tiger had gorged upon a buffalo carcass the night before it was weighed, and reliable estimates bring it rather close to the largest lion`s weight, of 750 lbs.  
 
join my forum, at wildanimalelite.yuku.com, so we can have a more informed discussion, where i can post pictures and moving images, to prove my points.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:27 AM by Damon
The fight between lion and tiger will be forever disputed. The biggest tiger recorded = 857 pounds. The biggest lion = 750 pounds. It is impossible to come up with an accrate estimate of average size. You would have to weigh and measure every male lion and tiger.  
 
The lion has one big advantage over the tiger. His mane acts as a shield. Both big cats kill with their jaws. Either a strangle hold or a bite on back of the neck. The King of Beasts has the upper hand in this fight. 
 
But, the lion's mane serves no defence against a sledge hammer blow from a grizzly's big paw.  
 
These two big cats are the apex predators. The grizzly ( Ursus arctos in general ) are the ultimate carnivores. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 10:25 AM by Toby
Bears are omnivorus. This is to their advantage. Long ago, when a group of grizzlys found themseves secluded in a world of snow with very little vegetation, they learned to live almost exclusively on meat. They evolved into polar bears. When a group of bears found themselves seluded in a huge bamboo jungle, they learned to survive almost exclusively on bamboo. The giant panda.  
 
Being omnivores, the grizzly is built big and powerful like a bull, but with the weapons and instincts of the carnivore that he is.  
 
Zack talks about the grizzly being fat. This is also to the grizzlys advantage. Not only does it give the grizzly more weight, but added protection. The grizzly has a thick layer of fat and thick fur. Tiger claws will do only minor damage to a grizzly.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 10:50 AM by Toby
Toby, ther tigers claws will only do minor damage? Bengal tiger's can kill crocodiles with those canines and claws. Crocs have a much tougher hid than bear, they can reflect bullets, tigers can still rip their hide open. Can you imagine what a tiger can do to a bears hide? ugly stuff. 
 
 
 
And damon, tigers ARE larger than lions, can you give me evidence that the tiger ate an ENTIRE buffalo before he got weight? There was also a record of a siberian tiger who was 848.8 lb? did he eat a cow before that? Also, YOU said that the largest reliable record of the average weight of an average siberian tiger was 550, what about the lion? 209 kg, or 460 lb.  
 
And what about captive lions & tigers? the largest tiger was 1025 lb while the largest lion was 826 lb, although the Pter Jackson story of a 930 lb lion MIGHT be true. Even captive the tiger is superior over the lion.  
 
And the largest lion in the wild wqeight was 690 lb according to many reliable sources, although the largest was 750 according to records. 
 
No lion in the wild ever reached above 800 lb, tigers have. No lion has ever reached 950-1000 lb captive, tigers have.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 1:13 PM by zack
zack, where`d you here me say that 550 lbs was the largest recorded AVERAGE weight of the siberian? I said, quite specifically, that it was the largest reliably recorded specimen, period, all higher records being unconfirmed....not to mention, most experts disagree. 
 
And, in captivity, according to peter jackson, the largest lion was 930 lbs....the largest bengal was 866 lbs according to the guinness book of records, while the largest siberian was 1025 lbs....an exceptional beast, nontheless, and merely a coincidence that it happened to be larger than the lion. 
 
And, i never stated that tiger had ate a whole buffalo carcass....i stated, rather, that it had gorged on a buffalo carcass the night previously...before it was weighed. 
 
And, that record of the 848 lb siberian from the wild was never substantiated, and no one has the original document concerning the measurements of this animal, merely a second hand extract from mazak, who has been known to give estimates upon the weights of certain individual animals which he noted as being large. 
 
Anyways, here is the evidence that 857 lb tiger had feed upon the buffalo carcass before it was weighed: 
 
http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww131/schamah/Theheaviesttigerwasgorged.jpg 
 
And actually, the largest populations of lions were over 209 kg...in fact, about 221 kg, but they were measured by hunters, but the weights reliably reported, nonetheless.  
 
And, every wild lion was not measured.....only a VERY small percentage of the total population....so, how do you know no wild lion ever weighed over 800 lbs? 
 
And also, i`m still waiting on your proof concerning the measurements of those bears, in which you stated they averaged 194 kg, weighed throughout the months.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:46 PM by Damon
Zack... please pay attention. The crocodile has a tough hide, but not thick. The grizzly has a THICK layer of fat and THICK fur. The tigers claws would do very little real damage. 
 
A tiger's claws can inflict wounds, but their primary use is not as weapons. They are meat-hooks, so that the big cat can cling onto it's prey as it attempts to strangle a meal.  
 
According to info that you probably didn't bother to read, a grizzly can hit with more than double the force of a lion or a tiger. The grizzly's arms and paws are it's primary killing weapons.  
 
One slap from a tiger would really piss off a grizzly. One slap from a grizzly would cripple or kill the tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 5:40 PM by Toby
toby, an do you believe a paw swipe from a tiger does not do any damage? very untrue, a paw swipefrom a tiger can crush the skull of a cattle, simply using it's force of its razor sharp claws. The grizzly will be dead in maybe 3 pawswipes. And a single pawswipe will kill a tiger, hmm... Lionneses can regularly take kicks from zebra's to the head and stand up like nothing happend, this is how resistant its skull is. And again, the thick layers and fur of a grizzly will deliver little protection. Thickness of the fur of fat is not what is the most important here. All what matters is hor DURABLE the hide is, the crocs hide is far more durable than the bears hide. Tell me, can the hide of a bear reflect bullets? no. 
 
And the evidence of the grizzly average 194 kg:
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:30 PM by zack
toby, there is no possible way a grizzly can hit with over twice the force of a lion or tiger. There weights, overall, are rather similar....and so too, is there strength.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 8:50 PM by Damon
No Zack. A tiger cannot crush the skull of a cow by hitting it with his paw. A tiger would have to hold onto the cow with it's claws and strangle the cow with it's jaws.  
 
The big cats kill with their jaws. Pound for pound, the grizzly is the world's most powerful animal. Overall, a 600 pound grizzly is at least double the strength of a tiger. It is the grizzly who crushes skulls with a sledge-hammer like blow of a powerful forearm.  
 
You don't comprehend the word thick. A tiger's claws will cut through fur and fat and damage very little muscle tissue. But, one swipe of a grizzly paw and the tiger is either crippled or dead.  
 
The grizzly is also much bigger than the tiger. In a face-off, if both carnivores are young healthy adults, the tiger might win about 2 out of every 10 fights. That is how much of a chance the cat has of getting his teeth on the grizzly's neck.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:17 PM by Toby
Wrong Damon. Pound for pound, the grizzly is the world's most powerful animal. A 600 pound grizzly is much stronger than a 600 pound lion or tiger. The big cats have evolved to be the perfect land predator. I have a great respect for them. But they evolved to have stealth, speed, agility, and leaping ability. Yes, they are strong for such a nimble athletic predator. 
 
But, the grizzly is pure brute force. It takes a lion or a tiger from 20 minutes to sometimes over an hour to strangle a buffalo. 
 
The grizzly kills with his huge muscular arms. One hit usually knocks down his prey. This first hit often kills his prey. If not, he mauls the animal like a pit bull. It usually takes a grizzly just 2 or 3 minutes to kill his prey.  
 
When the grizzly hunts ( which is not often ) he hunts large game such as moose, bison, or wild boar. But more often, the grizzly hunts predators, such as wolves or tigers. It is easier for the ultimate carnivore to simply take a kill from a pack of wolves or a tiger, than to stalk his own prey. 
 
Interestingly, this is the same strategy as T-rex taking food from raptors ( according to popular theory ).
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:38 PM by Toby
No toby, not wrong. First off....how would a grizzly bear, of 600 lbs, be stronger than a tiger of equal weight. Unless the grizzly has a proportionately greater percentage of muscle, or else a greater percentage of usable muscle fibers with which to work with, there is absolutely NO WAY the grizzly bear could be stronger.  
 
The arms of the grizzly would only be but a stint larger than that of a tiger at equal weight...and indeed, i can prove this with actual studies....if you like?  
 
And, likewise, the grizzly takes just as long to take down an elk, as with a lion or tiger taking down a buffalo, which can likewise take as little as under a minute.....i`ve seen it. Not first hand of course, but, videos exist of lions taking down buffalo quite quickly, and while hunting alone.  
 
And, despite popular testimony.....no, the grizzly could not kill most animals with one blow, except perhaps those smaller than itself, as that would not only take an extremely powerful blow from the grizzly bear to accomplish, but likely an extremely well-aimed blow from a practically unmoving target.
Posted @ Sunday, July 18, 2010 10:33 PM by Damon
Explaining this is really getting tiresome. I have given sources to this info, but it is knowledge that any 5th grader should know. 
 
That hump on a grizzlys back is not a mosquito bite. It is rock-hard solid muscle. A grizzly spends long hours digging into concrete-hard frozen ground for roots and grubs. He often spends his days overturning huge logs and boulders that a tiger could not budge. Grizzlys have been seen overturning dumpsters. Every inche of him is built for brute force... not stealth, speed, agility, and leaping ability.  
 
A grizzly does not have to cling to a bull and strangle it with it's jaws, which ( YES ) can often take considerable time. The grizzly's main killing weapons are it's massively powerful forearms. 
 
Pound for pound, a grizzly is much stronger than any big cat. Add the fact that a grizzly is also much bigger. 
 
It seems that all of you big cat admirers want your favorite kitty to fight an inland grizzly from the Yukon area where the average boar is 400 pounds. But, by far, the coastal grizzlys outnumber these. Bears ranging in the 1,000+ pounds are not uncommon among them. They are only slightly smaller than the Kodiak. 
 
I will also add this. When Zack talks about tigers, he is more often talking about the Bengal. I could just as well talk about the Kodiak or the Kamchatka here. but, the coastal grizzly rivals even these.  
 
A female grizzly is 38% smaller than a boar. Animal averages are based on both sexes. The average boar grizzly would likely be above the 600 pound range.
Posted @ Monday, July 19, 2010 6:03 AM by Toby
In a face-off, the tiger will have no surprize advantage. To kill the 600 pound grizzly, your 450 pound tiger needs to get his jaws onto the bears throat. This is the only way a big cat knows how to kill.  
 
The massive grizzly is ready to swat the cat with his club-like forearms. The tiger is a big target. The grizzly is not likely to miss. 
 
It is like an orange Ford Mustang with black stripes having a head-on collision with a big brown concrete truck. Pretty much the same outcome.
Posted @ Monday, July 19, 2010 6:27 AM by Toby
toby, the siberian is not larger than the bengal tiger, nor is it my favorite kitty. And, why use merely the coastal grizzly? I was comparing the weights, and so forth, of all the grizzly populations combined, which would equate to an average weight, of 490 lbs.  
 
The siberian tiger averages just a stint over 400 lbs, or about 182 kg. And, in the yukon, the average grizzly weighs from 190 - 222 kg, according to one study.  
 
And no, big cats do not only kill with a bite to the throat....there claws can lecerate an opponent and they can still bite other areas of the body, such as the limbs or other bodily apendages to cripple the opponent.  
 
But, seeing as you are comparing an overlarge grizzly (600 lbs) rather than the overall average of 490 lbs for all populations, that is not a fair comparison. 
 
Of course a grizzly that is much larger would win. I believe even one of equal size would still win....but, that has nothing to do with strength, ect, but merely his style of fighting.  
 
Posted @ Monday, July 19, 2010 8:06 AM by Damon
First of all, tigers do not kill by slashing with their claws. They kill with a bite to the back of the neck or a strangulation hold. Either way, it means getting those jaws to his adversary's neck. 
 
There are three subspecies of grizzly: the Ussuri brown bear ( black grizzly ) which is also the ancestor of: Ursus arctos horriilis ( the inland grizzly ) and Ursus arctos gyas ( the coastal grizzly ).  
 
The smallest of thesebears, the inland grizzly, is also the most ferocious. Polar bears are terrified of them. The average boar is 400 pounds. The coastal grizzlys far outnumber thesThe average boar is from 800 to 1,000 pounds. Remember that these giants make up the majority of grizzlys. 600 pounds could very well be a low number for the average boar grizzly. 
 
But, an inland grizzly from the Yukon area is still far stronger and equally ferocious as your tiger. As for the biggest cat, there is simply not enough difference in the sizes of the Siberian and the bengal to say that one is bigger than the other. They both outweigh a lion by 100 pounds. No big cat can overpower a healthy boar grizzly.
Posted @ Monday, July 19, 2010 9:10 AM by Toby
en.allexperts.com/q/Tigers-3675/2008/1/Grizzly-Tiger-interaction-1.htm 
 
Interestingly, when a grizzly comes out from hibernation, he is at his weakest level. He needs protein. Meat. This is when he is most likely to bully other predators and take their kills. This includes both wolves and tigers. 
 
also, grizzlys are known to hunt and kill wild boar. This is another beast that tigers have a hard time with. It would be really difficult to get his teeth into that neck. The grizzly's method, a hard slap, is much more effective than jaws against a wild boar.
Posted @ Monday, July 19, 2010 11:01 AM by Toby
Damon, the tiger does have the genetic to be larger than a lion. Before tigers were hunt to the limit, the siberian tigers could have reached up to 850 lb on maximum, a lion is 620 lb in the wild, but VERY rarely. Even in captive, the largest lion was 826 lb while the largest tiger was 1025. 200 lb heavier than the lion!  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
And pound for pound, the tiger is also stronger than a lion. According to my research about cats.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tigers in general are more muscular and robustly built, particularly around the shoulder and forelimb area than lions. The new factor you have introduced (equal weight) does change things somewhat... The differences would still be noticeable and noteworthy in specimens of the same size and weight. Generally speaking, for the two immature specimens to have equal weight, the lion must be older than the tiger. Why ? Because tigers are generally larger than lions, so this shortfall must be made up by a little more Development time - hence the older lion specimen. An analogy would be comparing a 6ft tall 17 year old male human (the tiger) with a 22 year old 5 ft 9 in human (the lion). The two (in this analogy) have equal weight because the older man has a more developed musculature that makes up for the shortfall in height to give equal weight. Still following this analogy, it is unclear which would be stronger - the physically larger but less developed man (17 year old) may or may not be as strong as the physically smaller, but more developed 22 year old. The same applies to an immature lion and tiger of equal weight.  
 
Posted @ Monday, July 19, 2010 3:55 PM by zack
zack, you are quite incorrect. Tigers are not genetically larger than lions, or any of the sort. In fact, not too long ago, according to the guinness book of records, the lion, in captivity, had the highest reported weight.  
 
And also, you neglect to mention the 930 lb lion in captivity pointed out by peter jackson.  
 
And, which studies have you seen suggested the tiger was pound for pound stronger than the lion? First off....there is no such studies in existence. First off, for the tiger to be 'proportionately' stronger, it would need either a greater percentage of muscle mass (relatively speaking), and/or use of a greater percentage of muscle fibers within his body.  
 
According to actual records, the lion has the larger forearms, while the upper arm of the tiger is usually the larger. Proof? Here it is: 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/sreply/1183/t/FINAL-TRUTH-lion-s-forequarters-more-massive-than-tigers-.html 
 
And no, the lion does not have to be older than the tiger, to be of equal weight. In fact, after 7 years of age, the lion begins to lose condition/weight, according to studies by smuts. 
 
Young adult lions are usually the heaviest, with the heaviest lion in smut`s study being 225 kg (empty stomach, and 5 years of age. The heaviest siberian tiger in Yudin`s study was also 225 kg, and actually 6 years of age. 
 
So...what is your point? 
 
And, check this out, on siberian tigers: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigerinfo-1.jpg 
 
There you go. The muscle mass of the lion, upwards of 62%, is most certainly no less than that of the tiger`s of equal weight, and lions also have the greater power output (not referring to strength): 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/198
Posted @ Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:44 AM by Damon
Oh...and i forgot to mention the weight of that 225 kg siberian tiger, the largest male specimen in that study, was not adjusted for food content.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:52 AM by Damon
heaviest recorded tiger ...857  
 
heaviest recorded lion ....905  
 
heaviest recorded grizzly .1,499
Posted @ Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:13 AM by Toby
From the edge of the forest emerges a lion. At 500 lbs, he is slightyly bigger than average. Just 20 yards away, there appears a tiger. He is a 500 pound preator. Both big cats are territorial. They both prepare to charge.  
 
But then, from the North, there comes a grizzly. This 500 pound brute is smaller than average, but awesome never-the-less. The bruin stands up and looks down at the big cats. Both cats turn tail and run. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:05 AM by Toby
The tiger would stand a better chance against a grizzly than a lion. Tigers hunt bears ( sun bears, sloth bears, Asian black bears, and even female brown bears ). The tiger knows how a bear fights. 
 
The lion will believe that his thick mane will act as a shield to protect his neck. It won't. One good slap, and the lion is finished.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:15 AM by Toby
Toby, a tiger would not fair better against a grizzly than would a lion. The tiger`s fighting preference indicates it would most likely lose (much more so than the lion), and i have the data to prove it. Tigers usually fight upon their haucnhes, throwing a countless number of blows, in quick succession.  
 
However, the result with such a technique is that soon they tire out, particularly as in a fight they give everything on that first rush. They come in all tooth and claw, fighting in a wild rage and generally wearing themselves out, according to years of observation by Beatty. 
 
But, after a while, the bear would gain the advantage, and quickly finish off his opponent. Also, the overall average weights for all populations of grizzlies is 490 lbs.....so, how is a 500 lb grizzly smaller than average? 
 
But, here are some lion vs bears matchups: 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/40?page=1 
 
Also, according to scientists more experienced in this subject than i am, the tiger most usually avoids large male bears, though occasionally preying upon young cubs, or adults/young adults as large and perhaps smaller than themselves, such as females or males which may not be particularly of a large size, which may also depend upon the time of the year. Likewise, tigers usually attack these animals through ambush. And no, one good slap from a grizzly would not kill the lion. That is merely wishful thinking, and you lack the appropriate data to prove your point.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:27 AM by Damon
To start with, these staged fights are very different than if it took place in a natural setting. The animals are traumatized by captivity. No telling about individual health issues. 
 
1st bear. A cinnamon bear is a subspecies of American black bear. This bear was likely from 200 to 300 pounds. 
 
2nd bear. The lion was in the cage waitting to attack. The traumatized polar bear was disoriented and unsuspecting. Not a fair fight. Ambush. 
 
A grizzly ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) the inland grizzly can defeat a polar bear in the wild. No lion could do that. 
 
3rd bear. Bruin might have been a black bear or even a sun bear. 
 
*These staged fights have no place in these discussions. I am against arranged pit fights of any kind.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:49 AM by Toby
When an average weight is estimated, both sows and boars are considered. A boar is 38% bigger than a sow. Also, sows outnumber boars. Both coastal grizzlys and black grizzlys outnumber inland grizzlys. The average coastal and black boars are from 800 to 1,000 pounds. 1200 pound boars are not uncommon. There are 1400 hundred pound individuals. 
 
The inland grizzly male averages from 350 pounds to 550 pounds. There are far fewer of these bears than the other 2 subspecies. 
 
You do the math. But if it bothers you that much that ( in reality ) a grizzly is MUCH bigger than a lion or a tiger, then I will settle for Ursus horribilis, the inland grizzly. Average boar: 450 pounds.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:58 AM by Toby
If what Damon says is true, and a tiger has a slap fight with a grizzly, just one short minute later, the grizzly may not even remember he had a fight. It will be over that quickly. The grizzly is far stronger than any big cat. He hits much much harder.  
 
The grizzly can break the neck of an elk or a moose. A tiger's neck would likely break even easier.  
 
And I am talking about a 450 pound inland grizzly vs 450 lion or tiger. Even though this bear is smaller than your big cats, he is much more powerful. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:30 AM by Toby
Toby, it wasn`t an actual 'cinnamon bear', that was merely a quote referring to the specimen`s color. In the first sentence of that account, it clearly states that the animal is a russian bear.  
 
And how was that polar bear disoriented? It never said that in the extract. And where anywhere did it say the lion was waiting in the cage to attack the polar bear? You can`t merely invent things as you see fit. Read the account carefully. That was in a circus, and the lion was probably in a bad mood. The fight happened, of course, by accident.  
 
Bruin is usually the term used for brown bears, though i doubt they would use a black or sloth bear in that battle. After all...that was the only fight among all that i have shown you, that was staged. The rest happened merely by accident, as you can clearly tell from the description.  
 
And, how do you know the lion can`t defeat the polar bear in the wild? And also, how do you know that the inland grizzly can defeat a polar bear?....i`ve seen vids of large grizzlies chasing off polar bears, but how do you know, specifically, that the inland grizzly, which weighs just as much as the lion, can defeat a polar bear? 
 
What do you mean, when an average weight is estimated? Estimates are of little use in this discussion. I have actual data upon the weights of these animals, from specimens that were actually weighed, and an average given as such.  
 
And, i said the average weight of ALL the grizzly bear populations, not merely those from inland, is 490 lbs. And no, it doesn`t bother me that the grizzly is larger....in fact, i`m not even so sure it is, as, compared to body measurements, exclusive of weight, i`ve found the size of these specimens to be rather equal. certain grizzly bear populations do grow larger, but this is due to the greater proportion of food intake these bears have.  
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:04 AM by Damon
ok, what sex was the Russian bear? Size? the polar bear was being led into the cage. By humans! Damn right he or she was disoriented. Obviously, the lion was waitting for him. ( IF this even happened at all ).  
 
The term bruin is used for any bear. How do I know a bear is stronger than a big cat? 
 
How do you know that a rhinoceras is stronger than a sheep? Some things are so obvious that it is rediculous to consider otherwise.  
 
I will not argue about staged fights that may or may not have even took place.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:18 AM by Toby
Damon and Zack are both in denial of the size of a boar grizzly when including coastal and Eurasian black grizzlys. Damn! I am NOT going to explain this again. You are both obviously denying the truth. So ( once again ) because neither of you were listening the first time, I am from now on refering only to the Silvertip grizzly / Ursus arctos horribilis ) the inland grizzly. Average weight for boar: 450 lbs. 
 
The Silvertip grizzly is also the most aggresive brown bear. He is more than a match for a lion or a tiger in a face-off.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:36 AM by Toby
How would leading a polar bear to the arena disorient the animal? It was brought out to the arena to perform....the fight was merely an accident. And, I never asked how do you know a bear is stronger than a lion.  
 
But, if the grizzly and the lion is of equal weight, there is no possible way the grizzly bear could be stronger, unless it has either the greater percentage of muscle mass (which i doubt) or a higher degree of muscle fibers with which it could use to it`s advantage, which no studies prove. 
 
Now, i`ll show some data concerning the measurements of lions and grizzlies of equal size, and i`ll let you be the judge of whether or not they are stronger. Here they are: 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/39 
 
Average height: 95.2 cm 
 
Average head and body length: 164.3 cm, or 64.7 in (5ft 4.7 in.) 
 
Average weight: 193.3 kg, or 424.6 lbs 
 
Average girth: 130.5 cm 
 
Front pad width: 14.74 cm 
 
 
Lions: 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/45 
 
Ima use the rhodesia lions, since they are they closest in body mass to the inland grizzly (although the measurements of height is for kruger lions, though it should also apply to rhodesia lions as well): 
 
Shoulder height: 
 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/lions/photo3.html 
 
Average shoulder height: 3ft, 4 in. or 101.6 cm 
 
Length: 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/64 
 
Average head and body length: 179.9 cm 
 
Average weight (rhodesia): 193.3 kg 
 
Average girth (rhodesia): 125.9 cm 
 
Average paw width:  
 
http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/c79364384ed2ae06e4aa0de1047abdeb31f79ba7.pjpg 
 
10.6 cm 
 
As can be seen, the grizzly has the slightly greater girth and paw width, but is shorter in height and length.  
 
 
And, i don`t know whether that Russian bear was male or female, but the article states it was a superb specimen, nonetheless. And, this 'superb' specimen, lost the matchup.  
 
And, the average inland grizzly weighs 193 kg, or 424.6 lbs, not 450 lbs. 
 
And yes, i was listening the first time. I also do not agree with half the things zack writes, which you must obviously know by now.  
 
I stated you should include the 'average' grizzly, and the average of ALL populations is 490 lbs, so, just use the term grizzly, an animal with (irrespective of population) an average body mass of 490 lbs. Leave it at that. 
 
As for strength? What document do we have in comparison of that?
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:49 PM by Damon
GeeeZeus! Do the math. Learn to think for yourself, instead of just reading what one person wrote. 490 lbs perhaps for the average Ursus arctos horribilis. 
 
But the coastal grizzlys average from 800 to 1,000 pounds. Same for the black grizzly. NO Damon... don't shut your eyes and go into denial. These big bears far outnumber the smaller inland bears. 
 
Ursus arctos horribilis / inland grizzly / Silvertip = average boar 450 lbs. 
 
Now consider that this number is the few. The many are from 800 pounds to 1,000 pounds. 
 
So...explain how you come up with 490 pounds?  
 
Honest answer...you want the grizzly to be in the size range of the lions and tigers. It is all about what you want.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:58 PM by Toby
Where the grizzlys are the biggest, grizzly hunting is outlawed. So, there are probably grizzlys living in coastal Alaska now bigger than the one shot at this record size: 
 
Biggest tiger.....857 pounds. 
 
Biggest lion .....905 pounds. 
 
Biggest grizzly ..1,499 pounds. 
 
Among the coastal grizzlys and black grizzlys, 1,200 pound bears are not uncommon. There are likely more 1,400 pound grizzlys than there are 800 pound lions or tigers. 
 
If grizzlys were on average the size of a lion or a tiger, then the record killed would not be so over-the-top. Natuarlists who study these bears claim that there is little difference in the size of a coastal grizzly and a Kodiak bear.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:07 PM by Toby
Yellowstone grizzlys are inland grizzlys. The other site describes coastal grizzlys. 
 
www.yellowstone.net/wildlife/grizzly.htm 
 
www.associatedcontent.com/article/2301053/wild_animals_the_great_grizzly_bear.htm
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:34 PM by Toby
www.glacier-national-park-travel-guide.com/grizzly-bear-facts.html 
 
They claim that, at Glacier National Park, the average boar grizzly ( silvertip ) weighs from 300 to 500 pounds. 3.5 inches shoulder height. 7 feet long. 
 
The inland grizzly. Here is the grizzly to fight your lions and tigers. The 400 pound grizzly you have been looking for.  
 
NOW...can the fight begin?
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:54 PM by Toby
Toby, even when i explained my point...you failed to understand. The 490 lb average was the average of ALL the grizzly bear populations, inland, coastal, kodiak....ALL of them. I could have sworn i made that clear in my last post. 
 
And, the biggest wild lion, as far as i know, was a bit over 750 lbs. where`d you get 905 lbs from? And, besides, we are not talking of the heaviest weights of these animals...but average weights. 
 
And, the inland grizzly averages 190 kg or so....maybe a bit more. And, the data at glacier national park is flawed, as i showed you actual measurements of the height, weight, length, ect, of the grizzly bear.  
 
And no, the inland grizzly was not what i was looking for. Read my last post carefully.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:10 PM by Damon
Damon!! You have me pulling my hair out by the roots!! I KNOW what you have been saying..that the average boar grizzly ( including all 4 subspecies ) is 490 pounds. But, I am telling you that your words are crap!  
 
Fact #1..Coastal grizzlys outnumber inland grizzlys. 
 
Fact #2..Black grizzlys outnumber inland grizzlys. 
 
Fact #3..Both the coastal bear and the Eurasian grizzly average from 800 to 1,000 pounds. 
 
Fact #4..the inland grizzly ( the fewest ) average from 350 to 550 pounds. 
 
Now, Damon. Try to think for yourself. Do the math. Since the other 2 subspecies outnumber the silvertip, we will count each of these twice. 900 x 4 = 3600 + 450 = 4,05 devided by 5 = 810. 
 
According to the math, the average grizzly is 810 pounds which sounds exactly right if your thinking is not prejudiced. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:28 PM by Toby
typos: 3 subspecies of grizzly / 3600 + 450 = 4,050 pounds. Divide this by 5 ( counting the coastal bears twice and the Eurasian grizzly twice ) because they outnumber the endangered inland grizzly, and we discover that the average boar grizzly is 810 pounds.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:41 PM by Toby
Check your resources. According to my research on Yellowstone grizzlys, which are typical inland grizzlys and one of the largest populations. According to what I am finding, Ursus arctos horribilis boars average from 350 to 600 pounds. Hmmm? Wouldn't that make the average inland grizzly around 490 pounds? 
 
When you were seeking the average grizzly weight, were you seeking specifically boars? Were you including Ursus arctos horribilis / Ursus arctos gyas / and Ursus arctos lasiotus? 
 
Let me answer this question. NO. 
 
You were only looking at Ursus arctos horribilis.  
 
490 for a boar sounds about right.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:24 PM by Toby
www.yellowstone.net/wildlife/grizzly.htm 
 
www.eparks.org/wild_alaska_wildlife/grizzly.asp 
 
www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/grizzly_bear.php
Posted @ Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:32 PM by Toby
Damon, lb for lb a tiger IS stronge than a lion, just because there is no study does not mean we cannot use commen knowledge: 
 
Tiger: 
 
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3608291/2/istockphoto_3608291-tiger.jpg 
 
-Thick, Muscular limbs 
 
-Heavy muscled Back 
 
-Low on the ground 
 
Lion: 
 
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BT_DHHt-pC8/ReRTkdU-mfI/AAAAAAAAAAM/6LUQqrEkuBQ/s320/lion_lg.jpg 
 
-Skinny long Limbs 
 
-Curved in Back 
 
-Tall of the ground 
 
Jagaur: 
 
http://animals.timduru.org/dirlist/jaguar/jaguar-walks_on_grassland.jpg 
 
-Thick, muscular limbs 
 
-Muscled Back 
 
-Low on the ground 
 
Cheetah: 
 
http://baluch-rugs.com/images/Asiatic_Cheetah.jpg 
 
-Skinny long limbs 
 
-Curved in back 
 
-Tall of the ground 
 
The tiger is like a jaguar, thick and muscular while a lion is more like a cheetah or serval, long and skinny. Now we all know that lb for lb the Jagaur is the strongest and the cheetah is the most slender and fragile of all the Big cats, now doesn't that make the tiger stronger than a lion lb for lb? 
 
Have you also noticed that both Jaguar & tiger live in dense forest while Lion & cheetah live in open savanha? In grassland you need speed to survive, in the Jungle you need power.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:14 AM by zack
Damon, some of your comments about the main weight of the Grizzly make no sense, the Coastal Grizzly bears outnumber the Innerlands by 2 to 1. Do you know that? These are all the Sub-types of the American Ursus Actros: 
 
Southern Innerland Grizzly (Yellowstone): 480 lb 
 
Southern Coastal Grizzly (Brittish Colombia): 700 lb 
 
Yukon Innerland Grizzly (Silvertip): 400 lb 
 
Northern Coastal Grizzly (North Canada): 800 lb 
 
Alaskan Coastal Grizzly: 1000 lb 
 
Now the overall average off the coastal grizzly bear's is 833 lb while the Mountain grizzly's are 440 lb main weight. Now sinds the coastal out-number the innerland 2:1 this puts the grizzly bear on an average of rougly 700 lb 
 
420 lb lion vs. 700 lb bear - winner is the larger bear.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:28 AM by Doctor Zink
It had been long thought that the lion's closest relative is the tiger; and that the leopard's closest relative is the jaguar. DNA proved the experts wrong. The lion's closest living relative is the leopard. The tiger's closest living relative is the jaguar. 
 
The jaguar is pound for pound the world's strongest cat. He feared the Mexican grizzly, which was only slightly heavier. 
 
The average silvertip grizzly ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) at 450 pounds, is more than a match for the average lion or tiger. The average boar grizzly, when considering all 3 subspecies, at 810 pounds, against the average lion or tiger...it's a no brainer. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:56 AM by Toby
After doing the math, 450 lbs is low, while 490 lbs is a little high. Most reliable sites give the weight of a male inlang grizzly to be from 350 lbs to 600 lbs. 350 + 600 = 950. Devide this by 2 and the average inland grizzly is 475 pounds / average male grizzly 810 lbs.  
 
This fight was likely meant to be Siberian tiger vs Ursus arctos horribilis ( inland grizzly ) as no big cat could possibly win a fight against an 810 lb grizzly.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:32 AM by Toby
toby, i`m surprised at how little you know of the grizzly....as much as you speak of them. I`ll list all the records of the grizzly bear populations, to show you the average weight of all is 490 lbs: 
 
176 kg (flathead population)  
 
179 kg (eastern brooks)  
 
224 kg (alaska range)  
 
269 kg (Nelchina)  
 
195 kg (Tuktoyaktuk)  
 
148 kg (Mackenzie mountains)  
 
219 kg (yellowstone...average weight from two separate studies)  
 
182 kg (Western brooks)  
 
145 kg (Kluane park)  
 
173 kg (Northern yukon)  
 
coastal;  
 
312 kg (kodiak island)  
 
357 kg (alaska penninsula)  
 
260 kg (Admiralty island)  
 
257 kg (McNeil sanctuary)  
 
The average weight of all those populations combined, is 490 lbs. The average you gave is purely....well, i don`t know how you came up with that. I mentioned here the ACTUAL weights....not some estimates like from those sites you mentioned.  
 
The male grizzly does not average 810 lbs, as i have just shown.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:03 AM by Damon
Damon, you are really good at writting down lists of numbers. But where you are lacking is in common sense. I have read reports from DOZENS of experts ( people who work with a around these brutes ) and they all say that the coastal grizzly rivals the Kodiak in size. These bears average from 800 to 1,000 pounds. ( 900 lbs ).  
 
These and the Ussuri brown bear ( black grizzly ) far outnumber the inland grizzly. Yet, you are saying that the average boar grizzly is only 15 pounds heavier than the average inland variety. 
 
TRUTH...you want a tiny bear vs lion or tiger. ( admit it ). 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:25 AM by Toby
Damon, lb for lb a tiger IS stronger than a lion, just because there is no study does not mean we cannot use commen knowledge:  
 
 
 
Tiger:  
 
 
 
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3608291/2/istockphoto_3608291-tiger.jpg  
 
 
 
-Thick, Muscular limbs  
 
 
 
-Heavy muscled Back  
 
 
 
-Low on the ground  
 
 
 
Lion:  
 
 
 
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BT_DHHt-pC8/ReRTkdU-mfI/AAAAAAAAAAM/6LUQqrEkuBQ/s320/lion_lg.jpg  
 
 
 
-Skinny long Limbs  
 
 
 
-Curved in Back  
 
 
 
-Tall of the ground  
 
 
 
Jagaur:  
 
 
 
http://animals.timduru.org/dirlist/jaguar/jaguar-walks_on_grassland.jpg  
 
 
 
-Thick, muscular limbs  
 
 
 
-Muscled Back  
 
 
 
-Low on the ground  
 
 
 
Cheetah:  
 
 
 
http://baluch-rugs.com/images/Asiatic_Cheetah.jpg  
 
 
 
-Skinny long limbs  
 
 
 
-Curved in back  
 
 
 
-Tall of the ground  
 
 
 
The tiger is like a jaguar, thick and muscular while a lion is more like a cheetah or serval, long and skinny. Now we all know that lb for lb the Jagaur is the strongest and the cheetah is the most slender and fragile of all the Big cats, now doesn't that make the tiger stronger than a lion lb for lb?  
 
 
 
Have you also noticed that both Jaguar & tiger live in dense forest while Lion & cheetah live in open savanha? In grassland you need speed to survive, in the Jungle you need power.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:39 AM by Zack
Toby, why an 810 lb Grizzly Bear (which is extremely large) vs. an average tiger or lion? Because the Grizzly needs the largest possible size advantage, and any of the four Felids will likely beat any bear his own size, let alone the Jaguar.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:42 AM by zack
You are also attempting to get an average weight for grizzlys which include the sows which outnumber the boars. The sow is 38% smaller than a boar. You are also omitting the Eurasian grizzly which is equal in size to the coastal grizzly.  
 
Average male grizzly = 810 lbs. 
 
4 feet shoulder height. 7 ft long. 
 
.............................. 
 
Average inland grizz = 475 lbs. 
 
3ft 5in high. 6 ft 6 in long. 
 
.............................. 
 
Our arguing isn't going to end. I am looking at the facts. You want a smaller grizzly. let's end this. Let's have Siberian tiger vs Silvertip grizzly. 
 
What is ( in your opinion ) the average weight, height, and body length of the Siberian tiger? 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:43 AM by Toby
Again you are WRONG Damon. 
 
I do NOT insist on using the average grizzly, but neither will I lie to you or to myself as to it's size. 
 
I am more than happy to go with the silvertip grizzly, which happens to be the most aggressive brown bear of all. 475 pounds. 3 feet 5 inches high. 6 feet 6 inches long. 
 
Size of tiger ( any subspecies )? 
 
Size of lion ?
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:59 AM by Toby
toby, i only mentioned the weights of the males, no weights of females were included. And, i did not omit the Eurasian grizzly, as there is no such thing. Grizzlies only live in north america, for one thing, Eurasian sounds like it`s from europe.  
 
And, the average grizzly bear is 490 lbs, as i have shown, and 95 cm, or slightly above 3ft in height. And, the average inland grizzly is 191 kg, or roughly 420 lbs. How you got 475 lbs i do not know. The actual published data does not confirm that.  
 
And no, i don`t want a smaller grizzly....i want the average grizzly, and i mentioned the AVERAGE grizzly.  
 
And, i don`t need an opinion on the average weight, height, and length of the siberian....i have actual data for that, and it is as follows: 
 
This is from the siberian tiger project: 
 
Average height: 95 cm 
 
Average weight: 176 kg 
 
Average total length: 295 cm, or about 9ft, 5 in. measured in a straight line along the curves of the body. 
 
And, here is data on the body measurements of the grizzly: 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/39  
 
Average height: 95.2 cm  
 
Average head and body length: 164.3 cm, or 64.7 in (5ft 4.7 in.)  
 
Average weight: 193.3 kg, or 424.6 lbs  
 
Average girth: 130.5 cm  
 
Front pad width: 14.74 cm 
 
There you go.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:03 PM by Damon
According to your records, the coastal grizzly is 45 kilograms heavier than the Kodiak. Oh! And I watched the jaguar flee in terror from a Mexican grizzly. 
 
But enough of this...Silvertip vs any big cat ( including Smilodon ).
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:06 PM by Toby
And, zack, you cannot prove which animal is more muscular with pictures....especially biased ones at that. Here`s some better ones: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/COPYRIGHTtigerlion01.jpg 
 
Here`s another: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionandtigercomparison-5.jpg 
 
In the above pic, i scaled the tiger slightly bigger, and the lion still appears larger. 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/malelionandsiberiantigercomparis-1.jpg 
 
However, even these pics are not conclusive, as you cannot judge muscle mass through a pic, so, your point is nowhere near proven. Besides that, i`ve seen plenty of lions which looked far more muscled than some tigers. So, what is your point? 
 
You haven`t proven anything. The lion has, on average, the larger forearms, which the tiger in comparison has the larger upper arms, to suit it`s purpose of lone hunting. The tiger has proportionately longer hindlimbs, while the forelimbs of the lion is slightly longer in comparison. In the case of the tiger, this favors greater running speed. 
 
The lion had the largest muscle mass as compared with all other mammals in one particular study.....who`s to suggest that of the tiger is any greater? I doubt the tiger has a muscle mass over 55-62%, which is the muscle percentage of the lion.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:14 PM by Damon
Black grizzly / Ussuri brown bear / Ursus arctos lasiotus. 
 
The 2 American grizzly subspecies came to North America during the Ice Age. But not all of them. The Ussuri brown bear ( black grizzly ) is the ancestor of our grizzlys.  
 
The Kodiak bear is related to the Kamchatka bear. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:19 PM by Toby
toby, the kodiak grizzly IS a coastal grizzly. So, what are you talking about? 
 
And yes, those grizzlies from the alaskan penninsula are indeed larger than the kodiak, and indeed, they are not my records. I merely copied them from a document which listed the weights from all published documents concerning the grizzly bear. 
 
However, you get your weights from websites and the like that can be made by anyone. I myself can make a website just like that. Also, websites which just mention a range in the weights of the animal is not reliable....as we are looking for an average, and the weights i mentioned came from scientists in the field that had actually weighed those animals. 
 
I save every reliable document i come across.....so that, whenever i make a statement, i have the data to back it up.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:29 PM by Damon
Are you reading this Zack? 
 
According the the genious of Damon, the Kodiak bear is no longer the biggest bear. This info obviously comes from the same sources that says a lion is bigger than a tiger. 
 
No Zack. The Kodiak bear is NOT a grizzly. They live on Kodiak Island. 
 
Ursus arctos gyas / Coastal grizzly / peninsula bear ( according to DNA studies, is a true grizzly. 
 
A group of Ussuri brown bears migrated into Alaska from Siberia during the Ice Age. The coastalo bears and the inland grizzly are from this stock. These are the true grizzly bears. 
 
But, this site ( as far as I am concerned, is about Ursus arctos horribilis, the silvertip grizzly. 
 
So...just as soon as Zack's tiger ( which outweighs Damon's lion by 100 pounds ) kills the lion, my grizzly is waitting for him.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:44 PM by Toby
Europe and Asia are actually one vast continent called Eurasia. According to every source at hand, the tiger is bigger and stronger than the lion. The lion is related to the leopard, the tiger to the jaguar. According to my Mammals handbook by Smithsonian, lion: 5.5 to 8.25 feet long. 330 lbs to 550 lbs. / tiger: 4.5 feet to 9.25 feet long. 220 lbs. to 660 lbs. 
 
Hmmm? 660 subtract 550 = a big tiger outweighs a big lion by 110 lbs. Hmmmm? Does this mean that a tiger is bigger than a lion?  
 
I'll ask your opinions. What is the average size of a tiger / lion? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:12 PM by Toby
Toby, your handbook by smithsonian, just like most other sources, is mentioning only estimates. That is not the weight of lions and tigers, and the length is incorrect as well. 
 
I`ve found the average weight of african lions was about 190 kg, or 420 lbs. Smuts, likewise, gives an average weight of 189.08kg for over 160 male lions weighed in Kruger National park.  
 
Most other populations of lions were about equal, or above that above mentioned weights, and a few below those weights. 
 
The average Siberian tiger averages 182 kg, or about 400.4 lbs. Bengals have averaged anywhere from 330 - 517 lbs (upper record = baited). The overall average i`ve found for bengals is about 420 lbs, as well.  
 
I`ve spoken with someone who has worked with both indian and african lions in captivity, and he gives an average weight for both zoo specimens, of studbook animals, as being from 390 - 420 lbs. His name is Craig kennion. 
 
I`ve spoken with many experts on this matter, some agreed with me, while others had but little interest in the subject, and still others knew very little concerning the weights of wild lions and tigers.  
 
I myself have every modern document published concerning the size of lions and tigers (at least...i was not able to find any more sources, publically available or not, on th sizes of lions and tigers, and trust me, the data is extensive. 
 
You can learn more at my forum, at wildanimalelite.yuku.com 
 
On that forum, i can post moving pics and other pics which show the data i have to prove my points.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:48 PM by Damon
Toby, I've never said a Kodiak is a Coastal Grizzly. Damon said that, and he is wrong. The Kodiak is another Sub-species of Ursur Actros, The Alaskan Grizzly is not the Kodiak Bear, they are different bears. Damon is incorrect there, Kodiaks have slighly different shaped skulls and snouts.  
 
And Toby, a Grizzly is not lb for lb the most powerful of all members in the family of the carnivora, and despite the fact you have no evidence, you continue with your idiotic behaviour. How old are you? you're maturity is at equal status of an 8 year old toby. 
 
And Damon, MOST pictures of a lion I have seen show long and slender body with a curved in back, slender limbs and tall of the ground. Build like a Cheetah or Serval. The lion also lives in open grassland, just like the cheetah; he needs more speed than speed to survive. A tiger is thick, heavy and muscular and has thick limbs, muscular back and is low on the ground. Build like a Jaguar. Do you also notice that it takes a pack of 3 to 5 lions to kill a Buffalo. While a lone tiger can take down a buffalo by himself? 
 
Gaur > Tiger > Grizzly > Lion > Gorilla - All these topics are settled this way.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:04 PM by zack
Bear = AWESOME AND WINNER 
Tiger = AWESOME 
 
Oh, and Brady, if you really worked with such creatures, you would know how to spell ANIMAL.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:15 PM by Luke
Luke, i disagree with you about the Bear being the winner here, I believe a tiger can Take out a Brown Bear 6 out of 10 fights - However, I have my opinion and you have yours. I also believe either of these can take out a lion or Gorilla. Neither of these aniamls are more likely to loose to a Rhino, elephant, Giraffe, Hippo or Gaur in a head on head matchup.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:25 PM by zack
Animal strength compared to Humans, I ve seen experts on 'Animal Discovery Canada' making reliable estimates: 
 
Alpha male Wolf: 2 men  
 
Sun Bear & Snow leopard: 2.75 men 
 
Spotted hyena: 3 men 
 
Orangutan & Chimp; 3.5 men 
 
Cougar & Leopard: 4 men 
 
Giant Panda: 5 men 
 
Sloth bear & panatal jagaur: 6 men 
 
Silverback gorilla: 7.5 men 
 
Black bear: 8 men 
 
African Lion: 10 men 
 
Siberian Tiger: 11.5 men 
 
Moose : 13 men 
 
Brown bear & Polar bear: 14 men 
 
Wild bull: 14.5 men 
 
Bison & Buffalo: 15.5 men 
 
Giraffe: 17 men 
 
Rhino & Hippo: 20 men 
 
African Bush elephant: 25 men
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:01 PM by Doctor Zink
http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/curriculums/siberian-tiger-pc.cfm 
 
Before we destroyed it's habitat, the siberian tiger could be 650 lb on average, with exceptionally large giants up to 1000 lb. The thousand lb mark might have been possible back when their were many tigers left in the wild. 
 
650 lb vs. 810 lb grizzly = winner tiger 6 out of 10 
 
450 lb lion vs. 810 lb grizzly = winner grizzly 8 out of 10 
 
450 lb lion vs. 650 lb tiger = winner tiger 9 out of 10
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:11 PM by zack
The 420 pound tiger has killed an elk by ambush attack. It only took the tiger about 20 minutes to strangle this one. Usually takes longer. The tiger takes his time feeding. Resting. He is an average sized Siberian tiger. 
 
From the forest lumbers an average sized silvertip grizzly. ( on this world, all land creatures live on one vast continent ). The 475 pound bear stands up to his full height of 6 and a half feet. This makes the tiger nervous. 
 
If the tiger stood up, he would be even taller. The tiger stands 3 feet high at the shoulders and has a body length of 8 feet. The tiger is actually the bigger carnivore. But, because the grizzly is more heavily boned and muscled, he is heavier than the tiger. 
 
The grizzly stands 3 feet 5 inches tall at the shoulders. 6 feet 6 inches long.  
 
The tiger has no chance to prepare an ambush attack. He might have stood a chance if he did. But, face to face, no predator, other than a bigger bear could possibly win this fight. When it is over, the grizzly has elk for Dinner. The broken body of the tiger is left to the scavengers.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:59 PM by Toby
Luke is absolutely correct. The grizzly is the ultimate carnivore. No animal his size is as strong. The only way that a lion or tiger ( might ) win is if the big cat is a hellava lot BIGGER, or the grizzly is very old, crippled, or sick.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:22 PM by Toby
Dr. Zink. I found your chart interesting. The lion has 10 times the strength of a human. If this were true, the grizzly should be somewhere near the 20 mark.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:28 PM by Toby
zack, the siberian tiger NEVER used to average 650 lbs.....that was purely an estimate....i have both new and old data upon siberian tigers, and i assure you that a while ago, siberians weren`t much bigger than they are today. Considering only 2 specimens out of 18 male siberians weighed were in poor condition, and seeing as they averaged 400.4 lbs...that is a significant weight difference. Shouldn`t it be the other way around, with most of those siberians being in awful/poor condition. 
 
In fact, according to one expert on the subject, and you could say he is the most respected on the source, knows of no wild amurs that has reached 650 lbs in mass: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigerinfo-1.jpg 
 
And, a siberian tiger of 1000 lbs in the wild would be too big to provide for itself....slower, more sluggish, and it would also need to eat a substantial amount of food to sustain itself...more so than the average siberian. 
 
But, also, grizzlies average 490 lbs, not 810 lbs.  
 
zink, those estimates on the strength of those animals, i believe, is incorrect. And, zack, their are kodiak grizzly bears....i`m not incorrect. 
 
And, zack, most pictures i`ve seen of lions, as well as videos, show a well muscled creature...i can show quite a few, if you want? You need only ask.... 
 
And, i`ve seen single lions (male or female) take down an adult cape buffalo. And, tigers usually hunt young buffalo, as the data suggests. I can show that as well....if you want? 
 
And, Toby, who said a lion is bigger than a tiger? From which website? And, only a few scientists perhaps with limited knowledge on the subject stated that the kodiak bear was the largest subspecies of brown bear. It is not, however, as ACTUAL data shows. 
 
And, there is a kodiak grizzly bear, and a kodiak brown bear. Look it up. 
 
And no, tigers do not outweigh lions by any amount....they are quite equal in weight, actually.  
 
And, a lion or tiger the size of a grizzly would indeed be JUST as strong. However, i also have evidence which indicate the tiger would usually lose in a fight with a grizzly bear....however, such is not the case with the lion, which in my honest opinion would be the usual winner. 
 
I could explain precisely how a fight between a lion vs grizzly, or a tiger vs grizzly, or a lion vs tiger fight would take place....if anyone wants me to? 
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:20 PM by Damon
Toby, what are you reading? Comic books or Dysnep books? A grizzly is nowhere near as strong as 20 men, you are horribely overrating it's abilities. IF a Brown bear was anywhere near 0 humans of strenght, he would be physically stronger than any bovine, including the Buffalo Gaur. His strenght status is equal to that from a Bull Moose, no a Hippo or Rhino. 
 
And the Bear is stronger than aht elion due it's greater body-mass. However, when size INCREASES pound for pound power DECREASES. this is why some insects can lift a hunderd times they're own weight or more.
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:09 PM by Doctor zink
*Toby, what are you reading? Comic books or Dysnep books? A grizzly is nowhere near as strong as 20 men, you are horribely overrating it's abilities. IF a Brown bear was anywhere near 20 humans of strenght, he would be physically stronger than any bovine, including the Buffalo Gaur. His strenght status is equal to that from a Bull Moose, not a Hippo or Rhino.  
 
And the Bear is stronger than the lion due it's greater body-mass. However, when size INCREASES pound for pound power DECREASES. this is why some insects can deadlift a hunderd times they're own weight or more. *
Posted @ Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:15 PM by Doctor zink
Dr. Zink. Don't get your boxers in a bunch. I was kidding about the 20 men. But actually, those are purely rough estimates. There is no way to accurately measure the strength of an animal. 
 
Damon, it is YOU who keeps saying that a lion is bigger and stronger than a tiger. And yes, the Kodiak is the biggest subspecies of brown bear. Damon, Kodiak and grizzly are 2 very different bears.  
 
Silvertip grizzly ( inland grizzly ) averages 475 lbs. The 3 subspecies combined, the grizzly averages 810 lbs.  
 
Grizzlys are bigger than tigers. Tigers are bigger than lions.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 4:30 AM by Toby
There is not enough size difference between the Bengal and the Siberian to say that one is bigger than the other. Either is about 100 pounds heavier than a lion. Recently, I was watching a program about the lions of Gir National Park. At one time, the Asian lions were nearly extinct. Now, they have made a comeback. Their range has merged with the range of the Bengal tiger. 
 
The man said that, in more than a single case, one tiger chased off a whole pride of lions. A tiger outweighs a lion by 100 pounds.  
 
He went on to say that, when a lion fights another big cat, the lionesses will not help. The lion's only alternative is to find a place where there are no tigers. 
 
IF all of earth's creatures lived on one vast contenent, the only carnivore that the tiger would fear is the grizzly.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 6:24 AM by Toby
Damon, I went to: wildanimalelite.yuku.com 
 
I was not impressed. It is a site for lion worshipers who still believe that the lion is the King of Beasts. In a lion vs tiger fight:  
 
Size - tiger 
 
Strength - tiger 
 
The only advantage the lion has is his mane. Will that be enough when the 420 pound lion faces a 520 pound tiger? 
 
That thick mane will be of no use at all against a 475 pound grizzly. The 520 pound tiger would stand a better chance. But, the grizzly will break his neck too. 
 
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 7:04 AM by Toby
Actually, after doing a great deal more reading about lions and tigers. Both big cats are bigger that a silvertip grizzly.  
 
The lion is 4 feet high at the shoulder and measures about 8 feet in body length. 
 
The tiger is slightly over 3 feet high and has a body length of 8.5 feet. The tiger is thicker and more heavily muscled than the lion. 
 
The grizzly is 3.5 feet high and 6.5 feet long. 
 
lion = 420 pounds. 
 
tiger = 520 pounds. 
 
silvertip = 475 pounds.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 7:44 AM by Toby
Toby, you obviously know nothing about lions. For starters, tigers average 420 lbs, just like lions. The lion averages 3ft, 4 in (Dewald Keet). at the shoulder while the bengal averaged 3ft, 3 inch (A.A. Dunbar Brander) in another study. 
 
The siberian averages 95 cm, or 3ft, 1.4 inches. 
 
The grizzly is 95.2 cm tall at the shoulder, or about 3ft, 1.5 inches. Roughly equal with the siberian. Average head and body length: 164.3 cm, or 64.7 in (5ft 4.7 in.) 
 
The lion`s head and body length (not including the tail) is 6ft...the same as with the bengal tiger. 
 
I don`t know where you get your info from, Toby, but, it is not correct. And, the average grizzly is 490 lbs. The average inland grizzly is 191 kg....about equal in weight to the lion and tiger. 
 
and, as for my forum: wildanimelelite.yuku.com, it is not a place for lion worshipers. Everyone is welcome....it just so happens that majority of them agree with my assessment of the lion/tiger issue, as i offered the data to prove it. I try not to be biased in my comparisons of these animals, and you can see this on my forum. My name is boldchamp on the forum.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 8:57 AM by Damon
And, Toby, not only is the lion equally as large as the tiger (and, i can show the data that proves this, as well) but it has much more than the advantage of the mane. The lion is the more combative of the two, or in other words usually the animal more willing to engage in battle. They also usually prefer a different fighting tactic. I could go on and on about this, and basically give you a lengthy explaination. But, i know that will ot be good enough. So, i`ll let Beatty explain this: 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/49?page=1 
 
Here`s something else: 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/41 
 
And, how about a few more records?: 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/sreply/1415/t/experts-opinions-lions-vs-tigers-.html 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/sreply/1416/t/experts-opinions-lions-vs-tigers-.html 
 
There you go.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 9:10 AM by Damon
Ok Mr Data ( faulty data ) I am given a clear choice as to believe you or the majoity of experts. If you dig deep enough, you can find a few who agree with your views. 
 
So, how is it that Bengal tigers chase away whole prides of lions? 
 
According to every artcle and every book I pick up, the tiger is the biggest of the big cats. 
 
Dr Zink is right about the grizzly is stronger than a lion or a tiger. I read about a lion that drug a 1,000 pound carcass for 400 feet. I also read about a grizzly who drug a 1,000 pound steer up an almost vertical hill for a half mile through brambles.  
 
Your dimentions are likely more accurate than mine for the lion and the tiger, although you are lying about one or the other. 
 
The tiger ( bengal or siberian ) is bigger than a lion. 
 
Silvertip grizzly: 3.5 feet high at the shoulder, 6 feet long ( this is more common than 6 and a half ) 475 pounds.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 10:46 AM by Toby
Ursus arctos is the ultimate carnivora. The brown bear is the most powerful animal of his size. Ursus arctos horribilis ( the silvertip grizzly ) is the most aggressive of the brown bears. 
 
Do you really believe that a lion or a tiger could kill a grizzly in a face-off?
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 10:56 AM by Toby
Damon, anyone who knows or cares about cats, will agree that pound for pound, the Tiger is thicker and more muscular than a lion. The pictures you showed are either edit or taken from a 'fool angle'. And have you noticed that both jaguar and lion live in dense jungle - Meanwhile cheetahs, servals and lions mostly live in Sub Sahara or grassland? This is because in the Forest you do not need speed, you need strenght and stealth. In grassland speed is more important as you need to 'inrun' your prey. And than it takes 5 lions to kill a lone buffalo, while a solo tiger can perform the same feat.  
 
Does the above make sense to you? Tigers are both larger AND stronger than a lion. Any expert will agree with me. IF you still have yourdoubts, note these length - height weight comparison of a tiger and a lion. The tiger is thicker, heavier and more muscled 
 
10.7 ft tiger from head to tail with 3.4 ft shoulderheigth will weight 850 lb 
 
11 ft lion from head to tail with 4 ft shoulder height will weight 750 lb 
 
2 metre tiger in body-lenght with 0.9 metre will weigh 250 kg 
 
2 metre lion in body length with 1.2 metre will weigh 180 to 215 kg 
 
And toby. Do I believe a tiger will beat a Brown Bear in a battle? yes - Do I believe the lion will beat a Brown bear? no. And despite the fact you again have no evidence, you continue with your idiotic comments about the Grizzly Bear. STOP READING YOUR FAVORITE COMIC BOOKS ABOUT THE ADVANTURES OF SUPER GRIZZLY. oke? Toby believes that grizzly bears can lift trucks, breath fire, and trow elephants. Get in reality
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 11:46 AM by Zack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqDerk1--Ic 
 
 
 
The Siberian Tiger is the undisputed King of Russia. Every  
 
documentary, every source imaginable, common sense tells this. The Amur tiger is  
 
the Apex Predator of Russia. The largest brown bears are no match to an amur  
 
tiger, amur tigers prey on the largest of brown bears, kill them on a fequent  
 
basis. as high as nearly 40 % of the Amur tigers diet is bear. Some tigers dine  
 
only on bears, brown bears of any size are much easier for amur tigers to kill  
 
then other prey animals.
<A dir=ltr  
 
title=http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/brightln/sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd.jpg  
 
href="http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/brightln/sdsdsdsdsdsdsdsd.jpg"  
 
rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74...
From  
 
1976 to 2005 hundreds of radio collar tigers were monitored, not even a single  
 
cub was injured or attacked by a brown bear. Under scientific research, there  
 
are hundreds of cases of amur tigers killing and eating adult brown bears. Yet  
 
not one scientific case in 30 years of even a cub being injured by a brown  
 
bear.
<A dir=ltr  
 
title=http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/brightln/amurtigermortality.jpg  
 
href="http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/brightln/amurtigermortality.jpg"  
 
rel=nofollow  
 
target=_blank>http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74...
There's a reason  
 
for this Brown bears and bears of all kind. Avoid tigers at all costs. When a  
 
brown bear picks up a tigers tracks it immediately hightails it and turns in the  
 
other direction.

There is no debate, the bear is an omivore, they stands  
 
absolutely no chance against a tiger.

An to you boogar eaters who say  
 
Giant Kodiaks this and that. A kodiak would food for an amur tiger as  
 
well.

The only thing bear crooks have is old bs story book stories they  
 
find on century old books. It's similiar to dholes and tigers. There's never  
 
been any evidence about dholes fighting tigers, just myths from old books. On  
 
the other hand theres been cases of 8 wild dogs killing a male lion. Schaller  
 
etc..

Anyways brown bears are nothing to the KIng of Carnivores, the  
 
Siberian tiger. The top predator on earth. Twice the size of a lion  
 
genetically.

A bear of any kind or any size, is no match to an Amur tiger  
 
in it's prime condition. None. Fact
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 12:42 PM by TigerOwnAnyOtherCarnivore
Let me guess, tigerownanyothercarnivore, you woke up this morning, and had a big breakfast of STUPID, right? 
 
That was the most juvenile, idiotic, asinine and in all other ways, just plain silly, post that I've ever read. There's not a Tiger or Lion alive that would even think about taking on a full-grown male Brown Bear, or Coastal Grizzly. Every "expert" in the world would laugh at you for even thinking it! 
 
It's beyond stupid to even think any cat could. 
 
"booger eaters"? 
 
Seriously? 
 
What are you, 6 yrs old? 
 
What kind of juvenile nonsense is this?
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 2:59 PM by Jayson
Folks, how about we agree on this; 
 
A Tiger or a lion, may have a chance against a Grizzly of equal wt, maybe a 50-50 chance, although personally, I don't think it would be higher than 40%, but let's call it that and be done with it. 
 
At the same time, can we also agree that that same Tiger or Lion would have almost no against the larger Coastal Grizzly. 
 
Figures and "facts" have been thrown back and forth for what seems like forever, and nobody has changed their mind. 
 
whaddya think?
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 3:12 PM by Jayson
Fact: lions and tigers are built for stealth, speed, agility, and leaping ability. They are stringy with elastic muscularity. That is why a tiger of same body length as a grizzly is lighter than a grizzly. A grizzly is compact for pure brute force. The brown bear is the most powerful animal of it's size ( yes Zack, I gave you the site with this claim ).  
 
Liond and tigers are strong predators. But the strength of a big cat does not come close to being equal to the strength of grizzly of same weight.  
 
Jayson is right. No tiger is going to attack a full grown boar grizzly. Yes, I have read accounts of the Ussuri bear ( black grizzly ) killing females and cubs. 
 
The only grown boars killed by tigers were in hibernation. 
 
*A silvertip grizzly can kill any lion or tiger.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 3:44 PM by Toby
Typo, caused by family interruptions: I have read accounts of tigers killing female grizzlys as well as cubs. I have also read accounts of grizzlys killing male tigers to take their kill.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 4:41 PM by Toby
Toby, you have NO records or scientefic evidence of a Grizzly ever killing a tiger, not even a cub. This is Because all those stories of Brown bears killing tigers are bull, no evidence, only pure myth - But I did my research and I found A LOT of evidence. And Toby, what makes you think that just because a site merely states that the grizzly is lb for lb the strongest. Is there any evidence? no, only a mere assumption is made. 
 
 
 
<A dir=ltr  
 
title=http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/brightln/amurtigermortality.jpg  
 
href="http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/brightln/amurtigermortality.jpg"  
 
rel=nofollow  
 
target=_blank>http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74... 
 
<A dir=ltr  
 
title=http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/brightln/amurtigermortality.jpg  
 
href="http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/brightln/amurtigermortality.jpg"  
 
rel=nofollow  
 
target=_blank>http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74... 
 
There is not a single record of a Brown bear chasing a tiger from his kill, all the records stated say the Brown bear alwys flees when seing a tiger, or even it's tracks. Even there, Toby lacks on evidence.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 5:15 PM by Zack
Toby, tigers and lions are not 'designed' for speed, agility and leaping. And there is no such thing as 'elastic musculate'. You obvously have very little knowledge about this subject. Tigers have more speed and agility because they have loose muscle tendons attached to their musculate, and both have an equal porportion of muscle fibres and bone density. So how is the Grizzly any stronget than a cat his own size? Neither is any stronger pound for pound. 
 
And a Grizzly is thicker than a tiger his own length, simply because it has wider body range and thicker compact body, however at equal weights, they are equal in power aswell. yet at similar size the tiger will win 7 out of 10 - He is better armed, faster, more fierce and is an overall more skilled fighter.  
 
I've studied animals for 10 years, I know what I am talking about.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 5:25 PM by Doctor Zink
Zack. Because you are so dense, I will explain it to you again. 
 
Lions and tigers are designed for speed, agility, stealth, and leaping ability. They are flexible. 
 
Brown bears are compact, which means that a bear the same body length as a tiger is heavier than the tiger because he has heavier bones and much more muscle. The grizzly is designed for pure brute strength and stamina. 
 
Despite the grizzlys girth, he can run as fast as a lion, faster than a tiger. The grizzly is the ultimate carnivore.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 5:28 PM by Toby
Toby, tigers and lions are not 'designed' for speed, agility and leaping. And there is no such thing as 'elastic musculate'. You obvously have very little knowledge about this subject. Tigers have more speed and agility because they have loose muscle tendons attached to their musculate, and both have an equal porportion of muscle fibres and bone density. So how is the Grizzly any stronget than a cat his own size? Neither is any stronger pound for pound.  
 
And a Grizzly is thicker than a tiger his own length, simply because it has wider body range and thicker compact body, however at equal weights, they are equal in power aswell. yet at similar size the tiger will win 7 out of 10 - He is better armed, faster, more fierce and is an overall more skilled fighter. 
 
Toby, why did you show complete ignorance to my comments explaining musculate?
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 6:17 PM by Doctor zink
Toby, a grizzly cannot run as fast as a tiger or a lion. You must think the bear is some type of super-mammal; here are they're top speeds on reliable records: 
 
Lion & Tiger: 50 mph 
 
Grizzly Bear: 35 mph 
 
And Zack, just becuase there are no records of Brown bears killinggers doesn't mean it never happenned - But I stand corrected, according to many scientific evidence it is more often the cat who kills the bear.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 6:23 PM by Doctor zink
doc, how do you measure the "fierce" level of both animals? 
 
Exactly how do you determine which one is more "fierce"? 
 
The Grizzly is infamous for it's short temper. It is relentless when it's angry. The Tiger is known for being elusive. On the rare occasion when both animals are involved in killing humans, the tiger does so because it is hungry, and because of the health or age of the Tiger, the human may be easier prey for it. 
 
On the other hand, when the Grizzly kills a human, it's usually because the Grizzly was mad. In either case, both animals will have known where the human was long before the human knew it was in danger. 
 
But to get back to this "the Tiger is the more skilled fighter" thing, how do you determine this? 
 
Being solitary predators, I think it's safe to say that Tigers try to avoid conflict with other Tigers at all costs. Most, if not all fights, are over territory disputes or kills, both probably more rare than you think, or mating rights. 
 
Grizzlies, on the other hand, especially the Coastal Grizzlies, come into contact with each other more often because of their feeding habits and the amount of time they have to pack on the required weight to survive the winter hibernation. They will fight over the best fishing spot when the Salmon start their run, they'll even fight over the best berry patch.  
 
I've seen two male Lions fight and I've seen two Grizzlies fight. 
 
There was a lot of sound and fury with the lions, lost of moving around. 
 
With the Grizzlies it was totally different. Not as loud, but just as furious, if not more so, by how quiet it was in comparison. It was like watching two pitbulls in how they used their jaws to get in a crippling bite, but the big difference was in how they used their fore-paws and arms, grab, manuever and hold each other to try and gain the advantage. The huge claws of the two bears were doing some damage also. 
 
By contrast, I don't think I've ever seen two Tigers fight. 
 
Anyway, my question still stands; by what criteria do you judge the Tiger to be the more fighter? 
 
Please understand, HUNTING is NOT FIGHTING. 
 
And tell me how you figure the Tiger is the more skilled fighter?
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 7:06 PM by jayson
Zink & Zack...muscle tendons attachment...whatever. Right. Tigers are designed for stealth, speed, agility, and leaping ability. 
 
The grizzly is pure raw power: strength and stamina. The grizzly is too muscular to be a jumper and twist and turn like the limber ( more elastic big cats ).  
 
You cannot be a gymnist and a pro-weight lifter too. Pound for pound, the grizzly is much stronger than any lion or tiger. 
 
In a face-off, between the average silvertip boar grizzly and ANY big cat: 7 out of 10 fights for the grizzly. ( the other 3 might have a tooth ache, sick, or too old ).  
 
carnivoraforum/index.cgi?action=display&board=zoological&thread=1442&page=3#76339
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 7:20 PM by Toby
Zink. You said that lions and tigers are NOT designed for stealth, speed, agility, and leaping? Big cats are not stealthy? Big cats are not fast? Big cats are not agile? Big cats cannot jump? 
 
Like I said. Big cats are athletes. Grizzly bears are brutes, far stronger that any big cat that ever lived.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 7:36 PM by Toby
Here's a little hint Zink. Wider girth, bigger stronger bones, much more muscle... adds up to more strength / more power. 
 
In a run, a grizzly can easily catch a lion or a tiger. And then kill it. The grizzly has stamina. Not only is the grizzly more powerful than any big cat, bears are smarter than big cats.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 9:02 PM by Toby
Toby, ironic how little you know about bear and cat musculate jet how much you talk about it. Please stop reading sites like Freewebs or Liarweb. 
 
Here is a little common knowledge. First of all, what are you talking about Tiger is athlete while Grizzly is brute? Cats have something called loose muscle tendons, connected to their musculate. This has absolutely nothing to do with being 'designed' - Animals are not automobiles. Being slender has nothing to do with strenght. Despite being more slender, a 300 lb Anaconda is stronger than a 300 lb Crocodile, and will likely win a fight. Both grizzly bear and Tigers have an equal amount of muscle fibres lbs fo lbs. How is the bear actually stronger lbs for lbs? you again, fail to prove anything but the fact you know absolutely nothing. 
 
Big cats also have EXTREMELY powerful skeleton. lionesses for example can regularly take kicks from zebra's and buffalo's, and stand up like nothing.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 9:34 PM by Doctor zink
And Toby, one more thing I've noticed in your arrogant comments: "The Grizzly has way more muscle". at equal lenghts - yes because the bear has more bulk. 
 
However - at equal lenghts? no. In fact, CATS HAVE MORE MUSCLE MASS THAN ANY OTHER MAMMAL OF EQUAVELANT WEIGHT, a lion was recorded at 59 % of musculate. This is more than a mustelid or badger, and therefore, also more than a bear.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 9:40 PM by Doctor zink
http://www.carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=interspecific&action=display&thread=599 
 
Read about leopard - gorilla interaction in congo.
Posted @ Friday, July 23, 2010 9:48 PM by zack
Equal body length. The carnivore who is strongest at equal body length is the stronger carnivore. The grizzly has heavier stronger bones and more muscle wrapped around all that bulk. 
 
Look at a tiger at frontal view. Laughable. He is flat. You see practically nothing but his head. Look at the grizzly. You see the bulk of him.  
 
If you take a tiger, with a 7 foot body length, and put a leather harness on him ( I know this is impractical - but use youyr imagination ) And do the same with a grizzly with a 7 foot body length. Attach some rope, and have a tug-of-war.  
 
I would bet my life that the grizzly will drag the tiger easily. No real contest.  
 
You compare the animals at equal body length to see which is more powerful. If you went by weight, you are simply giving the lighter built animal an unfair advantag. The grizzly is built heavier because he is more powerful.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 6:44 AM by Toby
carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=zoological&thread=1442&page=3#76339 
 
The grizzly can run as fast as a lion and faster than a tiger, dispite his weight and bulk. The grizzly is a much better runner than any big cat because he has stamina.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 6:51 AM by Toby
Ursus arctos horribilis, the silvertip grizzly, the inland grizzly...use which name suits you. He is actually smaller than the average lion or tiger, but just as heavy because grizzlys are built heavier and stronger than the big cats.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 7:30 AM by Toby
IF I were stranded in my car, in a wilderness area, the car broke down and a dead battery...I would rather there be both a hungry lion and a hungry tiger outside than one angry grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 7:44 AM by Toby
Toby, the grizzly will not easily catch a lion or tiger. I was the one who wrote that sentence on carnivoraforum, concerning the speed of the grizzly, because i have an actual study to prove it, and indeed i showed that study at one point. 
 
The grizzly is just as fast as a lion. How would he be able to capture a lion, if the animal is just as fast, and even more maneuverable? The tiger, of course, is slightly faster than both.  
 
And, if you were stranded in the wilderness, it is likely the lion/tiger which would attack you, before a grizzly would. 
 
I actually believe the grizzly would normally defeat the tiger (i have evidence for this), but not the lion.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:49 AM by Damon
Toby, the grizzly bear does not have heavier bones, especially if the grizzly is equal in size to the lion or tiger. And, tiger`s do not have a 7 ft head and body length. But, 6ft. And yes, a grizzly could indeed drag a lion or tiger easily, and vice versa. Well, so long as the animal being dragged is not offering any resistance.  
 
The body of the grizzly bear is wider, but that of the lion or tiger is longer (on average) and taller (from chest to withers, and sometimes the lion or tiger is slightly taller. Not to mention the girth of a grizzly bear of 193 kg is 130 cm, while that of a lion of equal weight being 125.9 cm, a difference of only 4.1 cm. That is less than 2 inches, which is not worth noting. I also have a record of a lion, of 434 lbs, which had a girth of 4ft, 9 inches, or about 149 cm, greater than that of the average grizzly, though the weight is nearly equal. 
 
So, what does that tell you of the thickness of the average lion/tiger, or bear? Maybe it is not so different after all. The grizzly merely 'looks' bulkier, with his wider form and much thicker/longer fur.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:02 AM by Damon
Toby, the reason the bear can`t jump far is not due to the difference in muscle elasticity, or any similar. The reason is body build. The limbs of bears is mostly pillar shaped, and this means little jumping ability, because, in order for an animal to be able to jump any degree of distance, it would require a natural bend in the limb bones (which when jumping is straightened, and the limbs effectively 'lengthened', giving a longer jump)which the bear lacks to a significant degree. 
 
I seriously doubt the bear would be stronger than a lion or tiger at equal weights, unless his muscle mass or available use of muscle fibers was greater than that of the lion or tiger`s, which again, i highly doubt.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:10 AM by Damon
Damon. You miss the point entirely. The grizzly can catch the big cat because the lion or tiger will be exhausted while the grizzly, with greater stamina, will have energy to burn. The lion or tiger will be too tired to even fight back.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:25 AM by Toby
Body length. Again Damon misses the point. IF you take a lion or a tiger, and compare this big cat with a grizzly of equal body length, the grizzly will be the heavier stronger carnivore. 
 
IF you compare by weight, then you are giving an unfair advantage to the lighter built carnivore. Can your brain comprehend this?
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:31 AM by Toby
The reason that a grizzly cannot make the incredible leaps of a tiger: same reason that a rhinoceras can't. The grizzly is built too powerful to twist and turn and jump like a cat.  
 
Neither can a lion match the tiger's leaping ability.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 11:26 AM by Toby
Toby, there is no such thing as being too powerfully built to be able to jump a certain distance. The reason the rhino can`t jump is, for starters, because of his great weight. His legs lacks the strength necessary to support his mass if and when he decides to jump. Likewise, his limbs are pillar-like in build, which means the animal has no natural 'spring' if and when he decides to jump. The latter is true for the grizzly as well.  
 
Toby, yes, the grizzly can run for longer periods, but, the lion and tiger is capable of long bursts of running, if the situation calls for it. For example, a male lion was recorded chasing a hyena for half a mile. A lioness was recorded chasing gazelle for a distance of over 900 meters, and then ran a further 60 ft to capture a young animal, which she separated from the heard, as witnessed by guggisberg. 
 
And, the lion is capable of almost as great a jumping ability of the tiger, leaping over 20 ft, and occasionally upwards of 30 ft, and jumping at heights of over 8ft, on occasion, and upwards of 10 to 12ft.  
 
The tiger has the slightly longer hindlimbs, and this explains his slightly greater running and jumping ability. Get it now? 
 
The lion or tiger, on average, is usually longer, and or taller than the grizzly, and this makes up for the slightly wider body of the grizzly. But, that does not necessarily mean a grizzly of equal length would be heavier than a lion or tiger of equal length. And, indeed, i have the data to prove it. Do you care to see it?
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 1:31 PM by Damon
zack, you know VERY little about lions and tigers, and this becomes very obvious every time you make a post.  
 
For starters, the length of the lion or tiger does not govern it`s weight. A lion of 11 feet in length could be anywhere from 400 to possibly over 800 lbs. Same with the tiger. 
 
And, your so-called length and weight differences of the lion and tiger is purely incorrect. The longest accurately measured tiger was 10ft, 7 inches between pegs. The longest accurately measured lion was over 11ft in length. 
 
The average lion and tiger both average about 9ft, to slightly over 9ft in length. I could show you the data in proof of this, if you want? 
 
Also, the average lion and tiger will weigh 190 kg on average. Ann again, i have the data to prove this. 
 
And, most of the pictures i have of lions, have shown VERY muscular individuals, so, really, i don`t see how a picture could prove a lion or tiger has more muscle. Only an actual study concerning the muscle mass of these animals, at equal weights, would prove this. 
 
As no study exists comparing the muscle mass of these animals, you cannot assume that of the tiger is greater. And, a tiger is certainly no stronger than a lion, and i can give you the emails of certain experts, and you can ask them yourself, if you want? Peter jackson states that lions and tigers are equal in weight, also mentioning that such can hardly be judged unless you take into account the fact that one or both animals may have a full stomach, and this can influence the body weight. 
 
And, those pictures i showed indicated a lion and tiger viewed from nearly, if not the same angle. Note that in two of those picture comparisons, the tiger was scaled slightly bigger. In the last pic, they were scaled to the same size. 
 
I just wanted to show how the so-called 'well-muscled' tiger looks to the lion, when scaled slightly larger, and one scaled to the same size.  
 
I have been in contact with MANY experts via email, and majority did not have any data concerning the size of lions or tigers. Packer, for instance, did not have any data on the weights of tigers, and even lions, which is his area of expertize. Sunquist only had data concerning the mass of perhaps chitwan tigers, nagarahole, and siberian tigers.  
 
I myself have every modern document published upon the subject, and these studies indicate these animals are quite equal in both weight and length.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 2:39 PM by Damon
Toby, lenght has nothing to do with this. This is tiger or lion vs grizzly bear; in which case both will be roughly the same weight (400 to 500 lb). In a fight between a tiger or lion with a grizzly bear of equal weights, I will put $1000 on the cat. And let's look at their average Lenghts: 
 
Grizzly bear: 7 ft straight up - 5.25 ft body length - 490 lb 
 
Siberian tiger - 9 ft long head to tail - 6 ft long body - 450 lb 
 
African Lion - 9 ft long head to tail - 6 ft body lenght - 425 lb 
 
Being obvious, either an average tiger or lion would be able to kill an average grizzly. They have more killing insincts and aggression, speed, sharper reticable claws; and stronger, more often used jaws. 
 
And toby, the grizzly bear is not the strongest carnivore at equavelant size; just because there is one site with such a claim does not mean there is actual scientific evidence. In fact, may experts agree that if all mammals were equal size that the weasels will likely dominate the foodchain. I have to particularly agree with that
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 2:45 PM by doctor zink
Zink, you are as uncomprehending as Damon. You stated that a grizzly with a body length of 5.25 feet weighs 490 lbs. Then you say that a lion with a body length of 6 feet weighs 425 lbs and tiger of 6 feet weighs 450 lbs. 
 
Now, to see which carnivore is the built bigger and stronger, let's see how heavy a healthy young boar grizzly is with a 6 foot body length. 
 
IF you go strictly by weight, you are simply giving an unfair advantage to the carnivore with the lighter build. What is so damn difficult to understand?
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 6:04 PM by Toby
Damon. Read zink's last message. A grizzly with a 5.25 foot body length ( silvertip grizzly ) is 490 pounds. NOT every subspecies Damon. Silvertip. 
 
Also note, the tiger of same length, is heavier than the lion. The grizzly, with less body length, is heavier than both. Ursus actos horribilis is a much more powerfully built carnivore. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 6:11 PM by Toby
Toby ross, lenght has nothing to do with this; an average Grizzly is 5.25 ft long while an average tiger and lion is 6 ft long. By giving the bear an equal lenght (which it does not have) you are giving it an unfair advantage.  
 
And when did I say silvertip? the average of all Grizzly bears is roughly 490 lb. The average of the Yukon Innerland Grizzly (silvertip) is 350 to 400 lbs. The largest coastal grizzly lives of the Southern coast of Alaska, who is 700 to 750 lb.  
 
Please learn your facts. A grizzly is nowhere near 810 lb as main weight, not even the kodiak is that large on average. 
 
And toby, why do you want to have a large bear vs. an average tiger? I assume that is true sinds you want both at equal lenght while the tiger is actually longer than the grizzly bear in nature. This is because you have no argument or reasoning why a tiger will beat a grizzly his own weight.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 6:47 PM by Doctor zink
You are still uncomprehending! 
 
I know that a 490 lb grizzly can easily defeat a 450 lb tiger or a 425 lb lion. 
 
That is NOT the point! 
 
You, and Zack, and Damon are all saying that a lion or a tiger is equally as strong as a grizzly. For a fair and ballanced test of strength, they should each be tested at equal body length. If a tiger with a 6 foot body length is heavier and stronger than a lion of equal body length, then we can fairly say that tigers are built stronger than lions. Then, we test the grizzly with a 6 foot body length. 
 
YES, he is much thicker and heavier because he is the more powerful carnivore.  
 
AND, as Ursus arctos horribilis measures from 5 to 7 feet long, we can logically conclude that 490 lbs is closer to average silvertip weight than Coastal grizzly or black grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 7:04 PM by Toby
Actually Zink, the average silvertip grizzly weighs from 350 lbs to 600 lbs. My estimate of the average is thus 475 lbs.  
 
The average grizzly ( considering all 3 subspecies ) would exceed 700 lbs. 
 
Remember that the 2 larger subspecies outnumber the inland grizzlys.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 7:12 PM by Toby
Toby, you have absolutely no argument to why a 490 lb grizzly will 'easily' beat a 450 lb tiger or 425 lb lion. And no, to measure strenght overall, we should be measured at equal MASS, body lenght has nothing to do in this debate. And the average grizzly is 7 feet tall, and therefore 5.25 feet long because the limbs of a bear are roughly 1:4 of it's total height. Even there you lack on knowledge. 
 
And what are you reading? Comics or Teletoon? A grizzly bear is nowhere near 700 lb on average, only two subspecies of brown bear can reach that main size: Kodiak and Kamchatka. Otherwise, no brown bear is that large: The two sub-types are Coastal and Mountain. the Mountain Grizzly bears are 400 lb on average while the coastal's might be 650 lb. 490 lb i the overall average. Damon has an actual record upon this. Do you have any evidence or just plain idiotic talk? 
 
And the 'Black Grizzly' is a nickname to the Ussuri Brown Bear, who is a subspecies of brown bear of his own. NOT a sub-type of the American grizzly.
Posted @ Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:58 PM by Doctor Zink
A 490 pound grizzly is SO much stronger than a 450 pound tiger. It has SO much more stamina. The grizzly will simply overpower the big cat. the tiger ( or lion ) need to get his teeth on the grizzly's neck to kill him. The grizzly ( smarter than any big cat ) isn't going to allow this. In fact, it would only take a few well aimed slaps from the grizzly to kill the tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:18 AM by Toby
Coastal grizzlys ( Ursus arctos gyas ) average from 800 to 1,000 pounds. 1,200 pound boars are not uncommon. The record Coastal grizzly shot was 1,499 pounds.  
 
The park rangers ( I cannot name the park offhand ) but I can find it ) say that grizzlys in their park likely are even bigger. But, the only bears ever shot are by poachers. They are not going to have a weigh-in.  
 
The Ussuri brown bear ( black grizzly ) of Eurasia ( Ursus arctos lasiotus ) is as big as the coastal grizzly. Some individuals have reached sizes bigger than any Kamchatka bear. 
 
You, Zack, and Damon seem to be looking to have a tiger vs Sun Bear match here.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:28 AM by Toby
Katmai National Park.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:35 AM by Toby
I feel as if I am trying to explain common sense to a brick. 
 
No Zack. To compare 2 carnivores as to which has the most powerful body, one does NOT compare with equal body mass. That is simply giving the smaller animal an unfair advantage.  
 
You compare them with equal body length. Then, the carnivore with the most mass is likely the most powerful carnivore. 
 
Any 5th grader can understand this. But not the three stooges.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:42 AM by Toby
IF you wanted to see which snake is the strongest, you would compare a 20 foot python with a 20 foot anaconda. In this way, you can get a fair and ballanced contest. 
 
You would not use a 30 foot python against a 20 foot anaconda. That would defeat the purpose. You would find that the 20 foot anaconda is bigger and stronger than the 20 foot python.  
 
It works the same way with carnivores. The grizzly with a 6 foot body length will prove to be much bigger ( more mass ) than your big cats. 
 
Why? Because the brown bears are the ultimate carnivores.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:53 AM by Toby
www.aspeedracing.com/showthread.php?t=6945
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 7:31 AM by Toby
Explore this site. History / Carnivore knowledge / Common sense. 
 
www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 7:48 AM by Toby
And why is a grizzly bear pound for pound stronger than a tiger? it isn't. You have no evidence or any reliable back-up. And brown bears are the ultimate carnivores? That is your opinion; no need to state it in every single one of your comments. This proves you have no respect toward other peoples views. In many acient cultues the tiger and lion are symbols of power and bravery, this is why they deserve the title as 'king of the beasts'. No acient culture has a Brown bear as a mayor symbol. 
 
And no toby, a grizzly bear is roughly 490 lbs on average while the coastal grizzly is maybe 700 to 750 lbs Damon has an actual record upon this. Do you have ANY evidence? no you don't. 
 
And toby, by giving the grizzly equal lenght to the tiger you are giving your favorite animal an unfair advantage. An average tiger is 6 feet long while an average grizzly is 5.25 feet long, so why not a 6 ft bear vs. 6 ft tiger? Because you are streching the average grizzly bear's body lenght. That shows your level of maturity. 
 
And toby, because the Brown bear weights more at equal lenghts, does that make it the ultimate carnivore? well note this: a 8 ft long brown bear weights 1500 lbs - Meanwhile an 8 ft Walrus can weight 2000 lbs or more easily. So sinds the walrus also belongs to the family of the carnivora, does that make a walrus 'the ultimate carnivore'? According to toby's sense, the answer is yes. 
 
And by comparing a 300 lbs python with a 300 lbs anaconda, you get to realize which snake is truely stronger pound for pound. 
 
Liarweb is based on Old california fights that were 'said' to have happened. And no there is no such thing as "elastic muscles" - They're leaping ability is due the Fast twitch muscle fibre, an additional advantage the cat has over the bear. And tigers do not have low bone density, their skeleton is equally strong as a Brown bear his own size.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:01 AM by Doctor zink
Toby, for an equal comparison of strength, both animals should be compared at equal weights, not strength, because a grizzly bear of equal length to a lion or tiger, is proportionately larger. 
 
On average the grizzly has a wider body, but a shorter body from chest to withers, or head to beginning of tail, ect, so the difference balances itself out.  
 
Even then, though, i have records where a lion or tiger was as long as the corresponding grizzly bear, with either a greater chest girth or weight. I can show these records, if you want? 
 
And, what do you mean, i don`t understand your point or whatever? I understand perfectly...i just happen to not agree with it. 
 
And, coastal grizzlies do not average from 800 - 1000 lbs. I already showed the records concerning the mass of these animals....and still, you are posting some 800 - 1000 lbs nonesense. that is not based upon any actual studies. It is merely an estimate. I should know, because i actually have the data to prove my point, and i`m talking actual records of the size of these animals, from zoologists in the field.  
 
A grizzly bear of 490 lbs is not MUCH stronger than a tiger of 450 lbs, or a lion of 425 lbs, but only very slightly so. But, why the lion has to be the smallest? 
 
They are equal in size to the tiger, but of course the average grizzly is larger. Why not use the average sizes of each animals, that of both big cats being 420 lbs. 
 
And, lairwebs, concerning this particular subject, is not credible. Why? because no such records i`ve been able to find, except from the great bear almanac, exists on this subject. In the great bear almanac, it was stated that grizzly bears lost in pit fights to the mountain lion, and then it says a LARGE grizzly bear (the largest bear in america at the time at over 1200 mlbs) kill a lion as a cat would a rat.  
 
Of course a grizzly of that size would defeat a lion. But, what about one equal in near equal in weight to the lion? 
 
I have actual records of lions defeating brown bears and polar bears alike, so i would think it is very possible for the lion to defeat one. I also have evidence, however, that the tiger would normally lose in a battle with a grizzly bear, and, i can prove that as well.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:04 AM by Damon
And no, Toby, a tiger of the same length is not heavier than a lion. They are as equal in length as they are in weight. I can show you the data, if you want? 
 
And, i already showed the data of the average grizzly, concerning average length, girth, ect, of both the lion and grizzly. But, if you want, i`ll compare a tiger and grizzly bear of equal length? 
 
I may do it in my next post, just to show you how mistaken you are. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:16 AM by Damon
It was Zink who gave the weights of lion and tiger at 425 and 450. July 24th, at 2:45 pm. And, since the tiger is normally longer than a lion, the average tiger has a greater size difference above the lion.  
 
Still, you miss the point entirely Damon! YES, at equal length, the grizzly has more bulk. This IS my point! The grizzly has more mass because he is the ultimate carnivore.  
 
The average silvertip grizzly has a shorter body length than either lion or tiger. Yet, this smaller bear has more mass. Why? Because he is the more powerful carnivore. 
 
Now, I know that both you and Zink are going to act ignorant concerning this.  
 
Zink. In 1969, I read the Old California log book ( translated into English ) about the arena fights. Complete records were kept.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:43 AM by Toby
*I have proven that the grizzly is proportionately bigger and stronger than any big cat. 
 
IF Zink, Zack, and Damon really had faith in their big cats, then this could be Ursus arctos vs Pathera leo vs Panthera tigris. You pick any subspecies of your choice to a face-off with a Kodiak bear or a Kamchatka bear.  
 
*The coastal grizzly averaged in the 800 pound range. yes, there are smaller coastal bears from 600 pounds to 799 pounds. There are just as many from 801 pounds to 1,000 pounds. There are probably more coastal grizzlys above the 1,000 lb range than below the 600 pound range. A full grown boar coastal grizzly in the 400 pound range is likely less common that one in the 1,400 pound range.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:53 AM by Toby
OK..We all know that a lion or tiger hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell against one of the giants among brown bears. So, I am happy to go with the most ferocious of brown bears. The silvertip grizzly. Advantages: 
 
body length ....lion and tiger.  
 
speed ....equal. 
 
agility ....lion and tiger. 
 
leaping ability ...lion and tiger. 
 
intelligence ....grizzly. 
 
strength ....grizzly. 
 
hitting power ....grizzly. 
 
sharp teeth ....lion and tiger. 
 
bite force ....lion and tiger. 
 
endurance ....grizzly. 
 
long claws ....equal. 
 
sharp claws ...lion and tiger. 
 
ferocity ....equal.  
 
*In a face-off, the big cat must get his jaws onto the grizzly bear's neck. He has some chance of doing this in an ambush attack. Not in a face-off. The grizzly can hit much harder than any big cat due to those awesome shoulder muscles. In a face off, a healthy boar grizzly will win likely 8 out of 10 fights. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 10:14 AM by Toby
Opinions of the experts. 
 
www.youtube.com/w2atch?v=tqtFMjU7A2o
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 2:18 PM by Toby
Toby, i did not completely miss your point. I told you already that i understood it perfectly.  
 
A grizzly bear of average length is indeed shorter than the average lion and tiger, however (emphasis on this word), the bear has a wider body (and his girth being greater even at equal weights), while the height from the chest to the withers in the lion and tiger is greater than that of the grizzly.  
 
So, my point, is that a bear which is shorter than a lion is not necessarily smaller, like you seem to suggest. It is larger in other areas, a point which you seemed to neglect. 
 
But, just to prove my point that a bear of equal length is not always heavier?....here you are: 
 
Body measurements of male grizzlies: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/meanbodymeasurementsofgrizzlies-1.jpg 
 
and mean weights of the different age classes: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/weightofmaleandfemalegrizzlies.jpg 
 
 
Okay. Here are the measurements of a tiger measured over curves: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/cooch%20behar%20records/coochbehar34.jpg 
 
His head to body length was 5ft, 6in. and he weighed 440 lbs.  
 
Now, the average weight of bears 8 years of age (which by then are of adult measurements and size) was 172.1 kg, though they were on average longer than the above mentioned tiger at 189 cm, or almost 6ft, 3 inches, over curves. So, even though the bear was longer, it was lighter in weight. 
 
Want more? Why, here it is: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/cooch%20behar%20records/coochbehar47.jpg 
 
The above male tiger had a head and body length of 6ft, 6 inches, or 198.12 cm. It weighed 479 lbs. 
 
The average 9 year old bears in this study averaged 200 cm in length, or slightly longer than then above mentioned tiger, and averaged 199 kg in weight, slightly less than 440 lbs.  
 
So, here, again, the bears were longer, but smaller in weight. 
 
However, the 16 year old bears, which had an average length of 197 cm in this study (1 cm less than the above mentioned tiger) weighed an average of 259.9 kg, or 571.78 lbs. So, in this case, they were larger. But, as i have also shown, this is not always the case. 
 
So, your point is irrelevent. And also, the average tiger is not longer than the average lion...so, what are you talking about? I can show you the data which indicates they are equal in length, if you want?
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 4:21 PM by Damon
And Toby, that opinion by the experts is not backed by any form of data, as they over-estimated the weights of both the siberian and the coastal grizzly. I`ve already posted the weights of these animals.  
 
The mean weighs of kodiaks, in this study, is 300 kg (page 3): 
 
http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_8/Stringham_Grizzly_8.pdf 
 
300 kg is 660 lbs. Quite a bit less than 800 - 1000 lbs, or 1500 lbs.  
 
It seems....i am right again. Those bears from the Ak pennisula average 319 - 373 kg, which is 701.8 - 820.6....so, that is an upper limit.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 4:30 PM by Damon
And I understand what you are saying. But, the POINT that I was making is...the FACT that a grizzly has more bulk at same body length as your big cats. 
 
To make a fair judgement as to which carnivore is the physically more powerful, you must compare by same body length. 
 
Fact: I have proven my point. Even a grizzly smaller than your lions and tigers is still with more body mass.  
 
By smaller, of less body length. Again I will give this example. You cannot compare a 20 foot anaconda with a 30 foot python to see which has the most body mass.  
 
Ursus arctos is more powerful than Panthera leo or Panthera tigris. Zink asks, how do I know that a grizzly is stronger than a tiger? The grizzly has thicker heavier bones. More body mass for more muscle. His lifestyle of digging in hard ground has caused him to develope that hump of shoulder muscle. He regularly overturns logs, boulders, and even dumpsters. No big cat can match a grizzly's strength. 
 
.......................... 
 
IF we finally have this matter of strength cleared up, I believe that the average silvertip grizzly can defeat any big cat in a face-off. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 5:10 PM by Toby
Toby, we do not judge the lbs strenght of an animal by equal lenght. That is making an unfair judgement to the tiger, who is naturaly longer. However the bear has a larger girth and greater shoulder height. Therefore a tiger and a grizzly of equal weights likely look equal in size.  
 
And toby, at equal weights cats have more muscle mass than any other mammal, including bears. And jet they have equally strong skeleton structure! And you cannot judge the strenght of an animal by it's lifestyles. Hippos are sluggish looking animals who spend most of their time relaxing in the sun or in the water. But still, a hippo is MUCH stronger than a bear, despite it's lack on power-using activity. Does thet make sense to you? 
 
Any cat is equaly strong to a bear his own size (discuding the cheetah) however the Jaguar (panthera onca) is perhaps even stronger than a grizzly his own size. Who knows, it's neverbeen tested so we can only judge on records and antonamy.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 5:31 PM by Doctor zink
Zink! I have seen bricks with more brains! how elose can I explain it!? If you compare 2 animals by weight, to conclude which is the more powerful carnivore, you miss the whole point of the comparison. 
 
At equal body length, the grizzly has much more girth. That is because he is the more powerful carnivore. 
 
And that my thick-skulled friend, is the whole point of the comparison.  
 
And yes, there are grizzlys that have more body length than a tiger. I am not saying that we must use this big bear in our fantasy face-off. This is merely to prove my point that a grizzly is the ultimate carnivore.
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 8:16 PM by Toby
*I have thus proven my point in a way that any normal 5th grader can understand. If you guys are incapable of comprehending, I cannot e-mail you a brain.  
 
So...how would YOU descibe a face-off between an average 475 pound silvertip grizzly and a 420 pound lion or a 500 pound tiger?
Posted @ Sunday, July 25, 2010 8:25 PM by Toby
www.myspace.com/539693522
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 7:27 AM by Toby
Toby, again, i understood your point completely. You were saying, basically, that a grizzly bear, which is normally shorter than a lion or tiger, is of greater bulk. 
 
How so? He is only shorter in length/height (equal in height to the tiger though) while being of a wider profile with the slightly higher chest girth, so the differences even themselves out. In others words, even though the grizzly is smaller in one area (i.e.length, it is larger in another). Do you get it? 
 
And, i compared the tiger with the grizzly bear of the same length, in some of the cases (in fact, most) the grizzly bear weighed less. Just check my last post. In other cases, it was heavier. 
 
So, your previous statements on this matter is not entirely plausible. 
 
And, the grizzly does not have thicker or more heavier bones. Which study proves that? No study, because it does not exist. But, i`ll do you one step over and compare the bones of the lion and grizzly bear: 
 
http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu130/boldchamp/boldchamp%20new%20album/LionandGrizzlybearskeleton.jpg 
 
The lion is scaled slightly taller and longer. Still think the bones of the bear would be heavier? 
 
And no, at equal body length, the grizzly does not have much more girth. Did you not look at those measurements i posted of grizzly bears and tigers, Toby? 
 
And also, a tiger is not on average longer than a lion. They are as equal in length as they are in weight. And, i`ll happily show you the data to prove it.  
 
And, the average grizzly weighs 490 lbs, the average inland grizzly weighs 191 kg, however, or 420 lbs. 
 
And actually, doctor zink, the hippo is not MUCH stronger than a bear. It is stronger, but not MUCH stronger. The average hippo i would presume, has the strength of roughly 15 men. The average brown bear: about 14. The average grizzly: 10 to 12 depending on his weight. In fact, an actual strength test was done on the grizzly, and it was shown he used the strength of about 2 men, with both paws, to move a 700 lb dumpster, end over end, as they put it. He also overturned a rock of 675 lbs, using one paw, with the strength of 6 men. That equates to a strength of 12 men. 
 
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 9:20 AM by Damon
I have watched that video of the testing of grizzly strength. It was very intresting, but not conclusive. The grizzly never exerted himself. He had strength and energy in reserve. 
 
The reason I am in total agreement with using the silvertip grizzly in a face-off with either lion or tiger is the fact that ( other than the extinct Mexican grizzly ) he is the smallest of the true grizzlys. With horribilis, we can have a good fight. 
 
Remember that all brown bears are of a single species ( Ursus arctos ). Only a prehistoric cave lion might put up a good fight with a coastal grizzly, Kodiak bear, or Kamchatka bear. Also, the California grizzly was huge. This is why i agree with several sites that claim Ursus arctos as the ultimate living carnivorous land mammal.
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 9:44 AM by Toby
You speak of these numbers, Damon, as if they were written in stone. First of all, not every male grizzly that lives is weighed. Second of all, most of this data comes from hunters ( which I despise ). Third, many grizzlys are killed by poachers. These are not on record. Therefore, any average decided upon is purely educated guesswork.  
 
Nearly everywhere i look in conducting my own research with only the resourses that I have, I see "male grizzly averages from 350 lbs to 600 lbs". According to my math, that makes the average grizzly boar 475 pounds. 
 
This is the weight that I will stay with for the silvertip until proven wrong.
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 10:08 AM by Toby
Enough endless squabbling over weight! If you still disagree, let's just say that my grizzly has packed on the Winter fat.  
 
475 pound silverback grizzly vs 420 pound African lion. Please give me your version of this face-off.
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 10:53 AM by Toby
oops... ( silvertip ) the inland variety. The most aggresive. The grizzly that chases polar bears. The grizzly that takes food from the hungry timber wolves.  
 
The kind that no lion or tiger really wants to fight.
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 10:59 AM by Toby
Toby 
 
The grizzly bear is not the most aggressive, it is sthe sloth bear who owns that title as the most fierce bear. And no, a silvertip grizzly is not 475 lb, 420 lb which is even to a tiger or a lion. again.  
 
And despite being the most furios Brown bear, it's level of testarone is not as great as a tiger or a lion. Not to long ago I went on a trip to Kamloops, in BC. A large grizzly bear was sitting neara river bank to drink some water, when a cougar, who was maybe half the bears size wlked up to to your silvertip, unafraid and roared in challenge to a fight. The bear turned his head down and ran, the couger chased it to the bushes. This wasn't something to expect. Now let's not forget a cougar is only one-third the size of a tiger or lion. 
 
Now the most often used excuse is: There was no reason to fight, well, if the silvertip is really as aggressive as Toby makes him look like, he doesn't need a reason. 
 
And toby, what makes you think that just because a source says that a silvertip grizzly is between 350 to 600 lbs, that automaticaly makes them 475 lbs on average? that is not true. You need to include population, time of the year and evrythimg to make an overall average: 422.5 lbs
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 11:52 AM by Doctor zink
Zink...the sloth bear is not a brown bear. Do your homework. 
 
I notice that Damon has you eatting cookie crumbs out of his hand. He has now convinced you that a lion is as big as a tiger. You are so EASY. 
 
According to all authorites, the Bengal and Siberian tigers are the biggest cats in the world. They each ( male ) average in the 500 lbs. range. 
 
The Indochina tiger ( Panthera tigris corbetti ) is the size of a lion. Both the Malayan and Sumatran tigers ( jacksoni and sumatrae ) are jaguar size. 
 
So a grizzly ran from a cougar. So what. No animal fights simply to be fighting. 
 
Example. Are you a coward? If you see a wharf rat in your house, do you reach down and grab him with your bare hand?  
 
Why not? You are strong enough to kill him with your bare hands.
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 4:49 PM by Toby
Let's see now. With population, time of year, and all other factors considered, the average silvertip grizzly is from 350 to 600 pounds. 350 + 600 = 950. Hmmm? Divide this by 2 and we get... Ta Dah! 475 pounds. 
 
Zink...stop taking Damon's word on every detail. He has spent years digging for data that agrees with his ideas, especially when it comes to the KING of BEASTS.
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 5:00 PM by Toby
Toby, adding the so-called highest and lowest reported weights of the grizzly does not give you an average. The only way to derive a reliable average, is to add the weights of all the corresponding populations and getting a mean.  
 
For example, the average weights of the inland population of grizzly bears is 191 kg. The average weights of all grizzly bear populations weighed is 490 lbs.  
 
Toby, name ONE expert that says the siberian and bengal tiger averages 500 lbs. I`d bet any amount of money you cannot. Most usually, such a statement comes from some site which anyone can publish, and the person likewise is not too knowledgeable concerning the weights of lions or tigers. 
 
The average body mass of 18 adult males weighed by the siberian tiger project, was but 176 kg. Two more males mentioned by guggisberg as being weighed by William Morden was 480 and 550 lbs, bringing the total average weight to 182 kg or so. 
 
The average bengal tiger weighs about 420 lbs, and i`ll show you the data to prove this, if you like? 
 
And, you are wrong. I save every reliable document i come across, whether it supports my belief or not. I did not start off believing the lion and tiger were/is of equal size. Over time, i gathered the data necessary to prove it.  
 
And, as for anybody grabbing a rat with their bare hands? I wouldn`t, not because i`m scared, but because i don`t like to touch them. But, a broom handle could settle the problem of the rat.  
 
And, it is you most often bringing up the issue with the weights....not me. However, you are reporting a rather incorrect figure. First of all....yes, some of the data of the grizzly bears is indeed from hunters...a great majority is from zoologists as well. The point of the matter is...a lot of specimens were weighed, and you can thus get a fairly reliable figure concerning the mass of these animals.  
 
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 6:21 PM by Damon
Wouldn't that be convenient, if the tiger and the grizzly both weighed 420 lbs, just like your lion? Wouldn't that make convincing someone that your lion can win a fight so much easier?  
 
Strange that, everything I read about tigers claim that the Bengal tiger and the Siberian tiger are the 2 biggest cats in the world. But, Damon knows secrets that the experts do not have access to.  
 
Let's just let the world's leading authorities on wildlife stay ignorant about all these things that only damon knows. 
 
Let's not tell them that grizzly bears are actually tiny little critters like sun bears. A grizzly is nothing for campers and hikers to fear. Just say "Boo" and the little grizzly will run.
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 7:58 PM by Toby
So, let me get this straight. Your lion is to have a face-off with a bear about 3 feet high at the shoulders with a 5 foot body length. 420 pounds. Basically an Asiatic black bear with a brown coat. Am I right?
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 9:56 PM by Toby
right i am going to sort this arguement but first of all tho. toby body  
 
length ....lion and tiger.  
 
 
 
speed ....equal. not really the big cats are faster but bears are not too far behind 
 
 
 
agility ....lion and tiger.  
 
 
 
leaping ability ...lion and tiger.  
 
 
 
intelligence ....grizzly.  
 
 
 
strength ....grizzly.  
 
 
 
hitting power ....grizzly.  
 
 
 
sharp teeth ....lion and tiger.  
 
 
 
bite force ....lion and tiger. wrong a brown bears skull show that it has bigger jaw muscles than the big cats.  
 
 
 
endurance ....grizzly.  
 
 
 
long claws ....equal. wrong again length goes to brown bear with ease. average 4-6 inch. record 9inch. 
 
 
 
sharp claws ...lion and tiger.  
 
 
 
ferocity ....equal.  
 
 
 
now we have our favourite animals thats fine but come on no need to take this to heart. 
 
i will say this either bear, tiger and lion have the abilithy to kill each other given the circumstance. 
 
zink u said that the bear is no major symbol of any ancient culture. that is not true native americans, vikings hold bears in high regard and admire their stength.ever heard of a berserker. its a known fact that brown bears and lions are strong in the front quarters (chest,front legs and neck) tigers have strong hind quarters. brown bea are the strongest over all due to digging and moving logs for food(lot of eatting for hibernation),which built up their mass of muscle and fat. it also gave them stronger bones and a denser skull than the big cats. this is why they have the ability to kill a bull with one hit to the skull or spine. they have a good speed and endurance to keep up with deer.  
 
 
 
now that i have talkd up the bear but the big cats are as impressive as the bear. the big cats have great ability. they are no push overs even against a brown bear.they have more of a predtory instinct and are far superior hunting ability compared to brown bears and could out compete bears for meat.  
 
 
 
when it comes to a fight i believe that bears would beat a lion or a tiger of equal size but not all the time maybe 6 out of 10 fights. the bear would need to be more aggressive to have the right mentallity to take on a big cats. if its a larger tiger or lion i would make it 7 out of 10 for tigers and lions.  
 
if its a larger bear then 9 out of 10 for the bears. 
 
the reason i believe this is because brown bears are more powerful and have more stamina than big cats. lions and tigers are ambush predators so lack stamina but have great speed and agility. 
 
i love bears the most but i love tigers and lions too. they all are amazing in ther own way.  
 
 
 
in the end given the right opportunity, either animal can win. but i believe the bear has a slight advantage.
Posted @ Monday, July 26, 2010 11:41 PM by baris
i made a mistake on the equal size of bear and tiger, lions fight, i make it out to be 7 out of 10 to the bear. it is harder to injure a bear because of their build and toughness. its easier to injure a tiger or a lion compared to a bear becasue of their build is more sleek. 
 
 
 
i know u will prob say im biast but i am not or at least try not to be :)
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:06 AM by baris
According to professor Damon, the average weights of carnivores are: 
 
Siberian tiger.....420 lbs. 
 
Bengal tiger.......420 lbs. 
 
African lion.......420 lbs. 
 
Asian lion.........420 lbs. 
 
inland grizzly.....420 lbs. 
 
*A grizzly fattened up for Winter:  
 
420 lbs. 
 
A grizzly after Winter sleep: 420 lbs. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:48 AM by Toby
myspace.com/539693522/photos/4946265
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:04 AM by Toby
Actually, Toby, a grizzly bear (inland) fattened up for winter can weigh about 575 lbs, however, the entire population about 500 - 710 lbs. 
 
Stop with the jokes, Toby. It`s childish. I also never said a siberian tiger averages 420 lbs. They average 400.4 lbs or so. But, this is due mostly to a depleted food supply, though most of the siberians weighed, with the exception of two, were in fair mto very good condition.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:05 AM by Damon
So, now the lion is bigger than the Siberian tiger. The experts are all so stupid.  
 
There are 6 subspecies of tigers. What is the average weight of a male tiger ( Panthera tigris )? 
 
Ursus arctos is a species, with many subspecies. What is the average weight of the brown bear, as a single species ( Ursus arctos ) ?
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:31 AM by Toby
Is it not amazing that on "Animal Face-Off" ( television ) the grizzly killed the tiger? 
 
On "Prehistoric Face-Off" the short-faced bear killed the cave lion? 
 
Of course, Damon has secret files that the experts have no access to.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:09 AM by Toby
www.bearaware.bc.ca/bears/bears_content.grizzly3bb.html
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:41 PM by Toby
www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:53 PM by Toby
www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/bear.html
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:06 PM by Toby
Toby, the average weight of the brown bear as a single species is 607.5 lbs.  
 
And, on animal face off, there was a matchup against a coastal brown bear, and a siberian tiger....hardly a fair matchup. And, likewise, they got the weights of both animals wrong. 
 
Most scientists do not even focus upon the weights of these animals, but instead other such important things as health, conservation, behavior, feeding habits, ect.....weight of course being an unimportant, and yet interesting aspect of the animal`s life. 
 
And, the data i`ve posted were FROM experts, so, how do they not have access to them? Merely, it is YOU that have the problem in agreeing with them. 
 
That first link you posted i could not go to. And the second does not offer any 'proof' as to the data they present. It is merely stated that the grizzly bear in the lower 40 states average 400 - 600 lbs. However, while that is a VERY close figure, it is nonetheless incorrect. besides, it is more reliable to get an actual average figure upon the weights of these animals, rather than a range.  
 
That last source was about the largest species of bear...the polar bear. of course it is the largest. What is your point? 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:13 PM by Damon
How can I argue with someone who knows more than all authorities? 
 
OK...I assume that the average Panthera leo ( African and Asian ) is 420 pounds. The average Ursus arctos is 607.5 pounds. 
 
Now, in considering all 6 subspecis of tiger, what is the average weight of Panthera tigris?
Posted @ Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:37 PM by Toby
Taking in account the South China tiger, the Indochina tiger, The Malayan tiger, the Sumatran tiger, the Bengal tiger, and the Siberian tiger...what is the average weight of a male Panthera tigris?
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:02 AM by Toby
Toby, i do not or am not sure of the average weights of the south china tiger, and only limited data exists upon the weights of the sumatran tiger. So, at this moment, i cannot give you a reliable figure as of the body mass of all the subspecies of tigers.  
 
And, where did i say i knew more than the authorities?
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:13 AM by Damon
As to that last question: I cannot understand why, info put out by professionals in books, documentaries, and online sites give totally different info than that which you are saying. 
 
You just might be right...but then, after years of such knowledge, it seems only natural, that the professionals in National Parks and in wildlife study would catch up.  
 
I am then forced to choose between believing Damon or everyone else. But, I am open-minded. My friends tell me that if I were any more open-minded my brains would fall out. So ( for now ) I will take your word for it. 
 
Since you have only 2 lion subs, not to much difference in either ( that I know of ) and Zink and Zack choose both Bengal and Siberian tigers ( not surprizingly the 2 biggest ) I will go with the average brown bear at 607.5 lbs. 
 
Ursus arctos vs Panthera leo vs Panthera tigris ( which would actually be the smallest carnivore here )... so we will allow the 420 pound Bengal-Siberian hybrid.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:36 AM by Toby
Toby, what you fail to realize is that few experts pay close attention to the weights of most animals, it being umimportant. Packer, for instance, though he is the leading expert on lions, knows little to nothing concerning the weight of these animals (told me so himself in an email).  
 
Lots of other scientists/zoologists and such likewise only focus upon their particular area of study. For example, if the particular scientist/zoologist currently studies the siberian tiger, chances are, they may not have much data upon the weights of bengal tigers, or african/asiatic lions. They mya have came across certain studies concerning the mass of these animals, and consequently published the corresponding data, but, most likely, those such studies are based upon estimates.  
 
I`ve shown data that even sunquist did not know about tigers, such as the data from Cooch Behar on the weight of tigers, or those from Smithers and wilson on the african lion, ect. The point is, is that not every scientist pay close attention to the weights of these animals. 
 
I myself, however, have every document published upon the weights of both lions and tigers. You`d be hard-pressed to find any more data in existence today.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:00 AM by Damon
one of these are your's ( Damon ). 
 
www.scribd.com/doc/15574755/Relative-Body-Mass-of-the-Lion-and-Tiger  
 
en.allexperts.com/q/Tigers-3675/2010/6muscle-mass-4.htm
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:39 AM by Toby
( i will use the term "grizzly" as the commonly used phrase of any brown bear subspecies ). 
 
Use your imagination. Imagine this 420 pound African-Asian lion hybred. he is the boss lion of a big pride of lioness's. 
 
This lion is standing 50 yards from a 607.5 pound boar grizzly.  
 
The lion is alone with a freshly killed warthog. The grizzly is hungry. The 2 carnivores face each other. Who will be eatting warthog?  
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:48 AM by Toby
error repair:  
 
en.allexperts.com/q/Tigers-3675/2010/6/muscle-mass-4.htm
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:56 AM by Toby
On some sites, when discribing a grizzly, they say that a grizzly has claws measuring up to 9 inches. Is there any truth to this? How about the length of a lion/tiger claw?
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:33 AM by Toby
Toby, the statement that the grizzlies claws are 'up to' 9 inches is rather deceiving, as it gives you no indication of the average size of the grizzly bear claws. Most sources upon the claw lengths of lions and tigers mention 60 - 90 cm as being the usual, though i`m unsure of the actual average, there being little data to prove it.  
 
And Toby, both of those links you showed were from me. I was the one who sent who asked that question and gave details concerning the muscle mass of the tiger on the allexperts site, and of course, i wrote that paper you showed.  
 
However, that so-called answer someone chose to post, is Very incorrect from that allexperts site. I`m talking of that answer at the bottom of the page.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:22 AM by Damon
damon that is madness, 60 - 90 cm is impossible. i think u made a mistake. i think u meant milimetres. so lions and tigers have 6 to 9 cm (60 to 90 mm) 
 
 
 
toby i would say 6 inch claws for an anverage sized bear and 9 inch claw for a large bear.  
 
 
 
but this is really only on brown bears because they digg so the claws are more straighter. 
 
black bears and polar bears have more of a curved claw designed for grip. black bears climb trees and polar bears grip on to seals and whales. not sure on the length of black and polar bears.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:52 PM by baris
Yes, baris, i did indeed mean 60 - 90 mm.
Posted @ Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:01 AM by Damon
Ursus arctos is the ultimate carnivore. 
 
www.wildlifetaxidermy.com/front-grizzly-bear-CLAWS.html
Posted @ Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:38 AM by Toby
From what I have found on the net: 
 
Lion claw- 3.5 inches / Tiger claw- 5 inches / Grizzly claw- 5 inches.
Posted @ Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:56 AM by Toby
Toby, those are estimates. For starters, the grizzly and tiger claw is not equal in length...and i`m sure you know this. And, in fact, those of the tiger is not larger. I have one comparison of the claw size of a captive lion and tiger, and that of the lion was the larger. Not to say the lion`s claws are larger than a tiger`s on average....just merely referring to that particular comparison.
Posted @ Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:14 PM by Damon
You were right Damon: 
 
www.boneclones.com/KO-071.html 
 
Grizzly claw = 5 inches. 
 
Tiger claw = 3.5 inches. 
 
Lion claw = 3.5 inches.
Posted @ Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:54 PM by Toby
Why a grizzly can kill a lion or a tiger in 80% of their face-offs. 
 
The big cat's biggest advantage is stealth ( the element of surprize ) followed by a quick burst of energy for a ferocious attack.  
 
But, in a face-off, there is no element of surprize. The big cat must rely on his speed and agility. The big cat is only slightly faster than the grizzly. To make a kill, the big cat must get his jaws locked onto the grizzly's throat or the back of his neck. 
 
This is not likely to happen. The grizzly's first line of defence, are his powerful arms, his normally powerful bear strength doubled by a massive hump of muscles which give him incredibly powerful shoulders and back.  
 
The average grizzly ( Ursus arctos ) is 607.5 pounds. The lion weighs 420 pounds. A tiger is even smaller.  
 
Each time the big cat leaps for the great bear, he is knocked back by a powerful grizzly paw. Each hit does considerable damage to the cat. Not only by the sledge-hammer blows, but also from 5 inche claws ripping big cat flesh. 
 
The cat's claws are for clinging onto prey as it attempts to get a strangle hold onto some herbivore. The grizzly's claws are for digging into rock-hard dirt. They are not as sharp, but they are strong and effective weapons.  
 
After just one to several hits, the fight is over. The grizzly stands triumpant.
Posted @ Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:13 PM by Toby
Toby, a tiger can kill a grizzly by paw swipes to the head. See, the swipes might not do as much damage in terms of power level (most of a bear's muscles are in the upper part of their body, the legs are very weak). However, the tiger has rectactable claws which can easily di flesh and rip it of. The fact that the tiger is more agile than the grizzly due it's fast twitch muscle fibre will allow it to hit the bear many times before the bear got to hit him. 
 
The tiger and the bear size eachother up. both are 450 to 500 lbs. The tiger gets the first strike and rips flesh open leaving a massive would. The grizzly bear being short sighted and lacking on agility attempts to hit the cat, but misses. The far more accurate and agile tiger hit's the bear again and again while using his great agility to avoid the ursus attacks.  
 
Now he has disambowled the grizzly. He leaps twelve feet in the air (!) over his halve dead opponent, and land onto his back, doing serious damage. The bear is trying to shake the mighty tiger of. But impossible, those massive claws hold on tight, and dig 4 inches deep inside the bears hide. The tiger rips flesh of the bear's hide, piece by piece until toby's hero bleeds to the death.
Posted @ Friday, July 30, 2010 5:46 PM by zack
First of all, the tiger is a Bengal/Siberian hybred. You are leaving out the Indochinese tiger, the malayan tiger, and the Sumatran tiger. Your tiger is 420 pounds. He is this BIG because we are allowing you to use only your biggest 2 subspecies.  
 
I am using all of Ursus arctos living. This includes even the smallest, which is only slightly larger than a Saint Bernard dog.  
 
My grizzly weighs 607.5 pounds. A slap from a tiger will cut the bears face, if the tiger can get in a hit. But the big cat cannot injure the grizzly with so little impact. The grizzly's arms are reinforced with a huge hump of solid rock-hard muscles. This gives the grizzly gargantuan strength in his shoulders, neck, and back. One solid hit from a grizzly can kill or cripple the tiger. 
 
The biggest difference between my story and yours is, my story is based on facts. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Friday, July 30, 2010 6:22 PM by Toby
Toby, the average brown bear, not grizzly, weighs 607.5 lbs. The grizzly averages 490 lbs. 
 
But, i`ll assure you a brown bear of 607.5 lbs is not much stronger than a lion or tiger of 420 lbs. He`ll be stronger, but not substantially so. Also, the average grizzly is probably 10 - 12 times stronger than the average man. 
 
The strength of the grizzly bear was actually measured, and it wasn`t measured at being 14 or 15, or even 20. The greatest it was capable of, was when it used 6 times the strength of a man, with one arm. That is a strength of 12 men. Here it is: 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38q2fDtDDvM 
 
And, that hump of muscle only increases the power of the bear in but one motion, in a sort of pulling action.  
 
A lion or tiger is as strong as about 10 men on average. And, zack, about that test where the tiger is supposedly 13 times stronger than a man. It is not accurate. For starters, it only moved like 600 - 700 kg a distance of 40 m (not 80), which 13 men had trouble moving farther than about 12 m. But, for 13 men, 6 or 700 kg is not much to pull. It was merely awkward. Not to mention the tiger in this study was claimed to have been a large specimen, to perform such a feat. 
 
I also have actual proof the tiger would normally lose to the grizzly, but not so with the lion, unless the weight difference is significant. A brown bear of 607.5 lbs would usually win in a fight with a lion. But, i have records of lions defeating brown bears and polar bears...so, of course, they do not always win, and that disproves the theory that they could perhaps kill one with a swipe to the head or whatever. 
 
Posted @ Friday, July 30, 2010 7:20 PM by Damon
The test for grizzly strength was not proof of anything. The grizzly never used his full potpotential. Measuring animal strength is never very accurate. 
 
I simply use the term "grizzly" ( as is common practice )for any brown bear. A 607.5 grizzly is MUCH stronger than a lion or a tiger. The brown bear could kill a lion as easily as it could kill a tiger. What advantages does a lion have? Not much.
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 4:32 AM by Toby
If not for humanity, the Ursus arctos would be among the most successful carnivores on the planet. The grizzly can eat just about anything. From grasses, roots, nuts, and berrys to grubs, termites, ants, and worms to fish, carrion, and fresh meat. If there are other predators around, the grizzly doesn't even have to hunt. His nose is even better than a bloodhound's. He can simply follow a pack of wolves or a tiger, and take what he wants. Because Ursus arctos is the ultimate carnivore.
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 4:42 AM by Toby
Toby, how do you know that bear wasn`t using his full potential? It had a nice incentive to try so...that being food. And, a brown bear of 607.5 lbs is not MUCH stronger than a lion or tiger, but only slightly so.
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:36 AM by Damon
This is not the first time that I have watched this video. At the end, the people say that the grizzly never used his full strength. There was no competition there. If a grizzly is fighting for food or for his life, he would be using a lot more force.  
 
A 420 pound grizzly is stronger than a 420 pound lion or tiger. Bigger heavier bones. That hump of muscle that adds brute strength to his back, neck, and shoulders.  
 
The big cats are designed for stealth, speed, and agility. Show me a video of a lion overturning boulders, logs, or a dumpster. Show me a lion digging into hard frozen ground. 
 
Lions and tigers are awesome predators. They are far better hunters than bears. But brute strength goes to the brown bears.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:49 AM by Toby
www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict13.html 
 
My last duty station in the USMC was in Key West FL. One of the guys, descended from the Old Californians, Spanish-American, had a copy translated into English, of the arena fight records. This was early 1968 or late '69. I well remember reading of the grizzlys killing packs of big dogs, Mexican bulls, and lions.
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 7:15 AM by Toby
Toby, first off, a grizzly bear of the same weight of a lion or tiger (420 lbs)would not have heavier bones, nor does that pertain to strength. The only way for an animal to be stronger than another would be to have either a greater percentage of muscle mass, or a greater degree of muscle fibers used for strenuous tasks.  
 
And, i only know of one account of a fight between a grizzly bear and a lion from the california pit fights....and that grizzly bear was over 1200 lbs (the great bear almanac)....much larger than the lion, so of course it won. But, i would like to see proof of those records of the grizzlies vs lions that you mentioned.
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:59 PM by Damon
California grizzlys were huge. Ursus arctos horribilis is among the smallest of brown bear subspecies. But, I will go with the average browie that, according to you... 607.5 pounds. 
 
Compared to the real giants among brown bears, even this is small. 
 
Let's face it. Brown bears are bigger stronger carnivores than the big cats. I really don't understand why anyone would even argue that a lion or tiger could possibly win more than perhaps 2 out of 10 fights. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 4:34 PM by Toby
According to paleontologists, Smilodon was the strongest and heaviest cat. According to paleontologists, because Smilodon was built more like a bear than other big cats. 
 
Hmmmm? Smilodon was stronger because he was built like a bear. Hmmmm? This must mean that... Hmmmmm? Bears are stronger than big cats. And the brown bears are the strongest bears...so...Hmmm? that would make Ursus arctos the strongest carnivore.
Posted @ Saturday, July 31, 2010 5:29 PM by Toby
Toby, again for the 10th time do you have evidence that the grizly bear is lb for lb stronger than a tiger? No you do not. And no the smilodon was not the strongest cat of all time. Only mere assumptions were made upon this. We cannot measure it's actual strenght, therefore we can only gues. The jaguar was stronger than a smilodon. Who knows? 
 
And the grizzly is not stronger than a tiger, simply because a tiger is quicker. Animals are not 'designed' for something. Animals are not automobiles. They're muscles evolve to be good at something and less at the other: 
 
Bear = strenght + stanima 
 
Cat = strenght + agility  
 
A bear has no stronger skeleton, I've already given you evidence and you continue with your talk. Cat's have more muscle than Bears or any other mammal they're own size. Lion was recorded at 59%. A grizzly bear varies from 40 to 55%. So there the cat is actually supreme to the bear. 
 
And a tiger's shoulder muscles are equally large to the bears. You cannot judge by front view. the tiger has a much broader and longer skeleton that blocks the view to it's enormous musculate: 
 
 
 
http://img.youtube.com/vi/2Uc0-8IugG0/0.jpg 
 
The tigers legs are huge, massive and broad. They're shoulders are ripped with muscle and they body has a Battery-Ram shape. So he is build like the Hulk. How much stronger can a bear bear? it ain't. 
 
A tiger was recorded dragging a 3000 lb Gaur carcas for 66 ft (20 metres) before eating it. That's the body lenght of a sperm whale! The Tiger probably did this in 30 seconds or something. Because they have tremendous strenght but less stanima.  
 
 
 
http://carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=interspecific&action=display&thread=455 
 
Ursus Actros, Taipan, Dasyurus, and ScotWolverine all agreed on the fact that lb for lb there is no strenght advantage. Now These people have actual knowledge about this subject (much more than toby). How wrong can they be? 
 
And toby, do you have any evidence that the Brown bear is the strongest bear? again, no you do not. regards to what most people are probably really thinking about when it comes to bone density (relative thickness of the cortical bone), cats are ahead of bears.  
 
Evidence: http://carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=interspecific&action=display&thread=455&page=63 
 
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 12:36 AM by Zack
Top 10 strongest animals for their size: 
 
http://scienceray.com/biology/top-10-strongest-animals-compared-to-body-weight/ 
 
http://vodpod.com/watch/2906457-top-10-strongest-animals-compared-to-body-size 
 
http://www.topdare.com/2010/01/top-10-strongest-animals-compared-to-body-size/ 
 
http://www.worldsbiggests.com/2010/02/top-10-strongest-animals-compared-to.html 
 
http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/5232,Strongest-Animals 
 
Grizzly is nr. 10 - Tiger is nr. 6 
 
Tigers can carry something up to 2 times their own weight straight up afence. A grizzly cannot come near that feat. The grizzly can only lift 0.75 x his weight 
 
 
 
On animal discovery the top 10 most extreme animals the Tiger was no. 4 while the Brown bear was no. 10 
 
Look at how much evidence i have, Toby
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 12:45 AM by Zack
Also I would like to advise you that lairweb should not be used as a major source of information, it was the first site that I believe started the lion has strongest forequarters of any cats while tigers have the strongest hindquarters. And about the bull and bear fights I even read recently from a questioner that this is not true and bulls won most of the time and when the bears did win they where very injured at the end. I am skeptical however because a bull is not the same as a buffalo as lions, and tigers kill buffalo all the time I think a bear should be able to kill a bull relatively easily theres no way to compare a buffalo and a bull. As they stated this is talked about in depth in the book "Californian grizzly". 
 
 
 
And while the lions where sent in too fight the bears it is said the bears killed the lions by crushing the spine by with one blow of there paw. Of course knowing how much misinformation lairweb has given this can be true or not. And as I have said these where fights using captive animals where the lion simply charged the bear head on. In the wild like lions do to all animals larger than themselves would probably circle the bear and find a way to attack from behind and would probably come out victorious in this match up. 
 
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 2:07 AM by
Zack. How many times must I explain this? The brown bears bones are thicker and heavier than a tigers. His frame is much broader. When you look at a tiger facing you, you see that he is flat ( no girth ) That is because the big cats are designed for stealth. That hump of solid rock-hard muscle on the brown bear's shoulders are from hundreds of thousands of years of digging into concrete-hard ground and overturning huge boulders and fallen trees. It doesn't take a genious to see that the brown bear is by far the stronger beast.  
 
Have you ever heard of an 1,800 pound lion or tiger? No, because Ursus arctos is the ultimate carnivore.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 5:09 AM by Toby
If a tiger slaps a brown bear in the face, the bear will bleed from it's cuts...and will be really angry. If the brown bear slaps the tiger in the face, the tiger ends up with a broken neck or a cracked skull. Or both.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 5:24 AM by Toby
We should all play by the same rules. I use the size of the average brown bear, from the smallest which is only slightly bigger than a Saint Bernard to the Kodiak. You should do the same with your tigers. Only fair. 
 
Average lion ...... 420 pounds.  
 
Average tiger ..... 300 pounds. 
 
Average brown bear. 607.5 pounds.  
 
*The average size for the tiger is at this point a rough estimate, until someone can come up with a bit more researched figure. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 5:34 AM by Toby
Average weights of tigers: 
 
Bengal... 420 pounds. 
 
Siberian. 400 pounds. 
 
Indochinese...400 pounds. 
 
South China...300 pounds. 
 
Malayan.......265 pounds. 
 
Sumatran......200 pounds.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 7:49 AM by Toby
brown Bear weights: 
 
Ursus arctos yesoensis / Hokkaido bear - ? 
 
Ursus arctos syriacus / Syrian bear - ? 
 
Ursus arctos pruinosus / Tibetan blue bear - ?  
 
ursus arctos isabellinus / Himalayan brown bear - ?  
 
Ursus arctos gobiensus / Gobi bear - ?  
 
ursus arctos collaris / East Siberian bear - ? 
 
Ursus arctos formicarius / Carpathian bear - ? 
 
Ursus actos marsicanus / Mariscan bear - 300 pounds. 
 
Ursus arctos horribilis / silvertip grizzly - 420 pounds. 
 
Ursus arctos arctos / European brown bear - 500 pounds. 
 
Ursus arctos lasiotus / Ussuri brown bear - 600 to 1200 pounds. 
 
Ursus arctos gyas / coastal grizzly - 600 to 1200 pounds. 
 
Ursus arctos beringianus / Kamchatka bear - 800 to 1500 pounds. 
 
Ursus arctos middendorffi / Kodiak bear - 800 to 1500 pounds. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 8:22 AM by Toby
Toby, actually, the average weight of malayan tigers is about 200.1 lbs.  
 
The average weight of bengal tigers: 420 lbs 
 
Average weight of sumatran tigers: 265 lbs or so, and upwards of 150 kg. 
 
I`m not too sure of the average weight of the South china tiger, but they aren`t much smaller than bengals. The average weight, if i`m not mistaken, was about 150 kg for south china tigers.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 8:55 AM by Damon
300 pound tiger charges toward a 607 pound brown bear, like Corvette about to have a head-on collision with a cement truck ( LOL )
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 9:08 AM by Toby
Gentlemen, l will admit up front that I am very biased and in favor of grizzlies. Ever since 2nd grade I was in a quest to determine the ultimate carnivore and my studies always led me to believe it was the grizzly. However, I’m determined to be factual and truthful. In Toby’s defense, I haven’t seen hard core evidence of any big cat winning a “head to head” match with a “fully grown healthy male brown bear of any species”. There’s too much rhetoric in this discussion based on speculation and assumptions. Those web sites which list the strongest animals are only “what’s been recorded ” and are not real evidence of a cat being stronger than a bear. Okay, a tiger was witness pulling a 3,000 lb carcass and I’ve read many reports about bears displaying strength which seems to defy logic. But I haven’t seen SOLID evidence where, pound for pound, a bear or cat is stronger than the other. And please, enough talk about the animals “evolving”. Each year hundreds of scientists are abandoning the THEORY of evolution because it is 1. based on trillions of assumptions/accidents and 2. It is not even real science. “Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” – Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, vol. 2 p. 229. “Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.” -Charles Darwin
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 9:58 AM by Bubba Bear
Actually Bubba Bear, there are literally tens of thousands of tons of hard evidence that prove the fact of evolution. The deeper into time you dig, the more primitive the life. 
 
However, as one who sees and knows that evolution is a fact, I am not an atheist. A single strand of DNA is much too complex to have been an accident. That would be like a tornado storming through a junk yard and accidentally building a Boen 747 airplane. Impossible. 
 
I believe in The Great Sppirit. A God of Nature. Mother Nature. The oldest religion of all.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 10:14 AM by Toby
The big cats are better hunters. The wolf's methods are even better. But, Ursus arctos is the ultimate carnivore who can take a kill from any other predator.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 10:22 AM by Toby
Toby, I’m happy to see your statement about DNA. However, your statement about “digging deeper” is based on the famous geologic column – which is so flawed on multiple levels it’s a joke. Read “Let The Earth Speak (of God’s Creation)” by Albert A C Waite PhD and read “In Six Days (why 50 scientists with PhDs believe in a literal 6 day creation). It seems the “assumption” mentality of the theory of evolution is very similar to the “assumption” mentality of those who believe a big cat could overtake a big bear “head to head”. I would also suggest that people should watch the video series (on Netflix) “Creatures That Defy Evolution”. Great footage of bears in there too!
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 11:00 AM by Bubba Bear
Bubba bear. This is not the place to be attempting to seduce people into your anti-nature religion. The is the "wild animal fight club". 
 
If you wish to talk about lion or tiger vs grizzly, then please join in.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 11:57 AM by Toby
Toby, as I stated in my first comment about my quest to find the ultimate carnivore since 2nd grade, it is one of many evidences that I am pro-nature and dearly love bears and ALL other animals and nature. 
To say that me or my religion is “anti-nature” is similar to the “assumption mentality” of those who believe that a big cat could take down a fully grown brown bear. You’ve had the freedom to try and support your views with fundamental concepts and I should have the same freedom too. You started speaking of evolution long before I joined this blog. I did not attack you and accuse you of being “anti-nature” and “seducing with your religion”. Like many other lovers of nature, I would like to debate in the “wild animal fight club” using “hard facts” rather than “assumptions, evolution THEORIES, and speculations”.  
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 12:33 PM by Bubba Bear
Hard Cold fact...evolution is a fact. In science, if there is very little or no hard evidence to back up a theory, then that is considered a weak theory. If there is some real hard evidence to put on the table, then it is considered a strong theory. But, if the amount of evidence is overwhelming, then the theory becomes fact. evolution is a fact. 
 
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 12:48 PM by Toby
I agree with Hugh over at: Polar bear vs Kodiak Bear. 
 
www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Ussuri_brown_bear::sub::Appearance
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 1:13 PM by Toby
Toby, you seem to be a bit hard on Bubba Bear, don't you think/ he does have a point, even if it is a rather weak one. Also, it's a bit off topic. 
 
To Zack: You're an idiot. Bears are much stronger poiund for pound.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 1:27 PM by Hugh
“Cold hard fact”? I’m afraid not, Toby. Even scientists say that the THEORY of evolution can NOT be considered “operational science”, but rather falls under “historical science” which by its very nature is based on assumptions. Just like when people say a big cat can take down a big male brown bear “head to head”, their OPINION is based on “historical science” which is nothing but “assumptions”. 
As I already mentioned a few of Charles Darwin’s confessions about evolution before he died, I would encourage ALL to honestly investigate the “cold hard facts” about the basics of nature and the grizzly verses tiger controversy. Anyone have some “cold hard facts” based on “operational science” as to whether a big cat or big bear is stronger than the other?  
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 1:47 PM by Bubba Bear
bubba bear, yes indeed, there is no actual data to compare the relative strength of the lion/tiger and brown bear, but i doubt that of the bear is greater. The big cats arfe plenty strong for their size, and, in the case of the lion, has a total of 55-62% muscle mass. I doubt the bear has a greater percentage.  
 
And hugh, no, a bear is not much stronger lb for lb than a big cat. If so, post the data to prove this. Oh wait, none exists, because there has never been a comparison. But, from what i know of these animals, i would say that, at least in the case of the grizzly bear, lb for lb strength is equal to that of the lion/tiger given that size is also equal.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 2:45 PM by Damon
Problem is, brown bears and lions are not the same size. But, at equal body length, the brown bear is stronger than any lion or tiger. The big cats cannot overturn the huge boulders and fallen trees than a bear does regularly. The big cats cannot dig into the hard, sometimes frozen ground like a grizzly. The big cats cannot match a big brown bear in strength. 
 
And, if you really want to play this out right, to see which is the ultimate carnivore, let's go with the maximum size range of lions and tigers. Not neccessarily the record sizes, but the normal range maximum of each species.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 3:19 PM by Toby
During the 1800's, hunters used to think that they could sit in a tree-stand in India by a game trail to shoot tigers. But, after several hunters were killed by the big cats, this method was stopped. The tiger would simply leap up and catch the hunter.  
 
In America, grizzly sometimes circled around to hunt the hunter. To try to escape, the hunter would climb up a tree, only to have the grizzly push it over.  
 
If your tree isn't big enough, you are not safe from a brown bear. I have never heard of a lion or a tiger pushing over a tree.  
 
IF I were stranded in a wilderness area in a broke-down car, I would rather there be both a hungry lion and a hungry tiger than one angry grizzly. In the car, I am safe from the big cats. But, not safe from an angry grizzly. 
 
Brown bears are stronger than any big cat. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 4:56 PM by Toby
Damon, I’m no expert in biology or muscle mass. What’s your source regarding your statement that a lion has 55% to 62% muscle mass of? Does anyone have a credible source for the big brown bear muscle mass? While a high muscle mass sounds impressive, remember that for humans it’s not the lean ripped body builders who are the strongest. It’s the big obese looking guys who hold the records for raw brute strength. We can talk about cats pulling huge carcasses and bears pushing trees all day, but, who has operational scientific facts that lb for lb one is stronger? I think most of us agree that in general brown bears are bigger, stronger, and dominant in a head to head match. But I’m not fully convinced about a bear and a cat of the same size.
Posted @ Monday, August 02, 2010 9:33 PM by Bubba Bear
My source on the muscle mass of lions was from the pdf document titled 'Allometric relationships in lions vs domestic cats'. The lions used were a male (3-4 years old) and female (mature adult). The male was apparently malnourished as he only weighed 109 kg or so, while the lioness was of an average weight of 138 kg. Anyways, here is the document here: 
 
http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab95/boldchamp1/boldchamp/Musclemassoflions1.jpg 
 
And yes, it is not the bodybuilders who are the strongest in humans. But, this is due to the fact that they do not train specifically for strength, but instead merely muscle growth. But still, they do get strong. I`ve seen body builders deadlift over 800 lbs, and i know of one guy from the world`s strongest man competition (marius pudzanouski...i spelled his name wrong) that was previously a body builder. 
 
And, i don`t have any data upon the muscle mass of brown bears or grizzlies, and, that being the case, how can anyone determine which is lb for lb stronger? Well, an actual strength test would prove this. 
 
Of course a bear of a much larger size would be stronger...no one is disputing that. But, relative to it`s size? It is not so simple. And, if you compare the muscle mass of a lion and grizzly/brown bear of the same weight, i doubt the bears would have the greater percentage. 
 
Both these animals